On 7/26/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, that's exactly what I was worried about. Why not just write: > prove -b -D -d 1 2 0 3 4 > this even avoids having to write special code to handle Andy's worry about > large lists of arguments.
I see your point and agree. Probably, --seed is enough together with the remark to not wait for this to work the same everywhere (but only in the same Perl configuration wrt 'rand' and 'srand'). In the same machine, --seed can be used to reproduce the same run or output the same list with the -D switch. This output can be saved and reused just as you said. Before you wrote this message, I was thinking about some nice way to implement retrieving the list from a file and that only makes the problem and implementation worse. For example, it calls for an implementation of 'slurp', the issue of checking mentioned in previous messages, etc. > prove is a command line utility. Use the command line. Ok. prove should stay simple. > > of the test scripts. There are many involved factors: I count on > > perl-qa to help revealing what is worth checking or not, so the patch > > can be tuned. > > Why would the number of test files vary when you trying to reproduce a > previous test run? They should not. But in a given setting, some confusion about new or removed files could cause problems because --list would use just indices 0..N-1. I was thinking about problems that were in fact introduced by --list. Without it, they are not concerns.
