On 24 Apr 2006, at 15:51, Shlomi Fish wrote:
[snip]
Am I missing something or isn't that what
Test::Harness:Straps/Test::Run::Straps are for? If not, I suppose I
can
extract a class out of Test::Run::Straps that will provide a
reusable TAP
parser.
[snip]
In addition to Michael's and chroma
On Monday 24 April 2006 07:56, Michael Peters wrote:
> Not only would this make it easier to have a harness look for something
> other than TAP (maybe some other protocol from some other language) but
> it also means I can parse test runs after they've been run on a
> completely different machine
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Monday 24 April 2006 01:46, Michael Peters wrote:
>> Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>> On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> harness.
On Monday 24 April 2006 01:46, Michael Peters wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
> >> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >>> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> >>> harness.
> >>
> >> No, it demonstrate
Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
>
> I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
> If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
I'm not attached to percentages, which I wasn't looki
Michael Peters wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
harness.
No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
I a
On 23 Apr 2006, at 20:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
[snip]
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a
test harness.
If it has it, then one can write a plugin to control whether or not
percentages are displayed. So for example, you can install a plugin
that does
that, and put t
chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:46, Michael Peters wrote:
How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
That's exactly what I want and precisely why I think a well-defined TAP is
more important
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 04:14:01PM -0400, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> > this released.
>
> Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
Of course, I forgot to mention: P
This is the same warning I reported in an earlier message: http://
groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/fee69dde25cf42ec
Given the wise counsel of a former Phalanx strategos ("every
warning your test suite throws is a bug which must be tracked
down"), I spent several hours looking at this t
David H. Adler wrote:
Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
t/00compile.ok 1/6Argument "2.57_06" isn't numeric in subroutine
entry at t/lib/Test/More.pm line 670
This is the same warning I reported in an earlier message:
http://groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/fee69dde25cf42ec
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:46, Michael Peters wrote:
> How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
> it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
That's exactly what I want and precisely why I think a well-defined TAP is
more important than a plugin sy
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
>>> harness.
>> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
>>
>
> I agree
Moin,
On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:08, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:11, chromatic wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
> > > However, are you implying that assuming we have that, one can write
On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:11, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> > you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> > test harnesses to process such test outpu
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
>
> I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
> If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
>
> xoa
> >
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
t/00compile.ok 1/6Argument "2.57_06" isn't numeric in subroutine
entry at t/lib/Test/More.pm line 6
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> test harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
No.
> Wouldn't that imply du
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> > harness.
>
> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
>
I agree that a well-defined test ou
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> harness.
No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
-- c
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:08, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > > failed. If you rely on the
On 4/23/06, H.Merijn Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > > failed. If you rely on th
On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> > the following happens:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ perl5.003 Makefile.PL
On 2006-04-23, at 02:49:14 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > > > T
On 2006-04-23, at 01:02:00 -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
>
> I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
> If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
I've run it throug
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> [snip]
> > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > failed. If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
> [snip]
>
> I'll just r
On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
[snip]
I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
failed. If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
[snip]
I'll just repeat what I left on Andy's blog here in case anybody
agrees with me.
I don't like the
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > > The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> > > the following
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> the following happens:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ perl5.003 Makefile.PL
> Can't locate ExtUtils/Command.pm in @INC at Makefile.PL line 4.
>
I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
this released.
I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
xoa
file: $CPAN/authors/id/P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_06.tar.gz
size:
30 matches
Mail list logo
