On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:19:57AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> > Not sure how I feel about this. If you were still using Pod::Checker,
> > I'd
> > definately say it won't fly since it throws so many silly warnings.
> > You
> > mentioned a few, the "Empty Paragraph" and that you can't use "=item
Le mercredi 05 mars 2003 à 19:38, Robert Spier écrivait:
>
> > There really aren't many tests that are meaningful without that access.
> > 00.load.t, 99.pod and add_header.t are all that seem to be valid
> > without it.
>
> You could allow the user to choose between internal and external
> te
You could allow the user to choose between internal and external
tests, where the internal tests are much simpler, maybe including a
trivial self-contained webserver to make sure everything works.
Help me out here. I'm trying to imagine why someone would want
WWW::Mechanize without a net connecti
> Help me out here. I'm trying to imagine why someone would want
> WWW::Mechanize without a net connection. Or are you saying that people
> will want to use it strictly behind a restrictive firewall where
> google.com isn't accessible?
Yes.
-R
Andy Lester sent the following bits through the ether:
> Or are you saying that people will want to use it strictly behind a
> restrictive firewall where google.com isn't accessible?
For example, we use it at work for testing our web applications. The
slightly overly-secure server we use for deve
For example, we use it at work for testing our web applications. The
slightly overly-secure server we use for developing can not see the
Internet, but it can test on localhost or other internal
servers. (There's a local CPAN mirror and other such things to make it
bearable).
I've created RT ticket
> "AL" == Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For example, we use it at work for testing our web applications. The
>> slightly overly-secure server we use for developing can not see the
>> Internet, but it can test on localhost or other internal
>> servers. (There's a local CPAN mirror
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 06-Mar-03 Andy Lester carved into stone:
>> You could allow the user to choose between internal and external
>> tests, where the internal tests are much simpler, maybe including a
>> trivial self-contained webserver to make sure everything works.
>
> H
Adrian Howard wrote at Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:40:52 +:
> I'd argue that Test::Warn isn't the right place :-) To me sending
> output to STDERR and warnings are different things.
Absolutely.
> If added to Test::Warn I'd argue for separate functions. I've had
> situations where warnings were log
Le jeudi 06 mars 2003 à 10:43, Andy Lester écrivait:
> >For example, we use it at work for testing our web applications. The
> >slightly overly-secure server we use for developing can not see the
> >Internet, but it can test on localhost or other internal
> >servers. (There's a local CPAN mirror an
10 matches
Mail list logo
