Okay - here's what I've figured out - D::C is not recording any coverage
info when I run a test in t/apache. D::C is recording coverage for all the
tests that are in the t/ directory - and the reports are in the realm of the
reasonable.
Have you had D::C collect coverage stats for tests in the t/a
> [snip - ah, helpful, now I understand how to use the testcover target]
:)
> Devel::Cover is reporting
> 100% statement coverage for a number of modules for which there are no tests
> as of yet (legacy modules I have yet to revisit)
I don't think that's unusual - D::C will aggregate all the r
> I've noticed that Devel::Cover reports wildly different results
> depending on the contents of @INC within the test files. Do you set
> search paths within the files?
>
Apache::Test sets the path (use lib '/yada/blib/lib') in modperl_inc.pl,
generated as part of the testing configuration. So t
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:45 -0700, Hilary Holz wrote:
> Well, I've learned something, but I still have the same problem. Sigh.
>
> I'm running under Module::Build, using the testcover target. Devel::Cover is
> collecting coverage statistics on the modules, it's just collecting
> reporting wildly
Hi Geoff (& Paul),
On 09/16/2005 08:54 AM, "Geoffrey Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache-Test-based distribution. the first is the addition of
> t/conf/modperl_extra.pl which (for anyone searching the archives) contains:
>
> if ($ENV{HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES}) {
>
[snip - ah, helpful, now
--- Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I think a spin-off of Test::Harness which will facilitate doing
> that
> > is still in order.
>
> Why not fix Test::Harness instead of re-inventing it entirely?
That's my thought. It's been known for a long time that Test::Harness
works well, but only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 16 September 2005 19:44, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Friday 16 September 2005 19:34, Mark Ethan Trostler wrote:
> > Alls you need to do is call:
> > ($tot, $failedtests) = Test::Harness::_run_all_tests(@tests);
> > instead of 'run_tests' to get at th
On Friday 16 September 2005 19:34, Mark Ethan Trostler wrote:
> Alls you need to do is call:
> ($tot, $failedtests) = Test::Harness::_run_all_tests(@tests);
> instead of 'run_tests' to get at the '$tot' & '$failedtest' hash refs
> (Data::Dumper it or look at the comments in Test::Harness) which has
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:40, Steve Peters wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:55:15AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Thus, it seems the best option if we want to make sure Test::Harness is
> > custmisable in this and other ways is to spin it off and create a better
> > and more customizable te
Alls you need to do is call:
($tot, $failedtests) = Test::Harness::_run_all_tests(@tests);
instead of 'run_tests' to get at the '$tot' & '$failedtest' hash refs
(Data::Dumper it or look at the comments in Test::Harness) which has all
the info you need to output whatever/however you want - I use
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:54:00AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> > I'd really love to use Devel::Cover - I love the effect mastering the
> > request/response Apache::Test framework has had on my code, and I really
> > want to start using code coverage as part of my toolkit.
>
> yah, this is a
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:35:05AM -0400, David Golden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I think a polite question is wonderful (with potential answers ranging from
> "sure" to "hey, that's a cool idea, let's try a merge instead of a fork").
Sure, it's a polite question, but an unnecessary one. He c
> I'd really love to use Devel::Cover - I love the effect mastering the
> request/response Apache::Test framework has had on my code, and I really
> want to start using code coverage as part of my toolkit.
yah, this is a bit more complex than it probably ought to be, but I guess
that's by design.
Andy Lester wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:55:15AM +0300, Shlomi Fish ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Mr. Lester, would you approve of a friendly spin-off of Test::Harness?
Why are you asking if I approve? You can do whatever you like with the
source code for Test::Harness.
I think a polite
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:55:15AM +0300, Shlomi Fish ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Mr. Lester, would you approve of a friendly spin-off of Test::Harness?
Why are you asking if I approve? You can do whatever you like with the
source code for Test::Harness.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 9/16/05, Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please try again with the leo-ctx5 branch, I suspect this should be working
> again, at least for
> now.
>
ParTcl builds fine now. there is, however, one failing test:
t\cmd_inline...NOK 2# Failed test (t\cmd_inline.t at lin
Please try again with the leo-ctx5 branch, I suspect this should be working
again, at least for
now.
> [jonathan - Wed Sep 14 10:18:59 2005]:
>
> "jerry gay (via RT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > the linker is failing to build ParTcl with MSVC, due to unresolved
> > external symbols. i'm
Thomas Klausner writes:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:52:00AM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Rather than do any additional exploding, I'd like to propose the
> > additional kwalitee test "has_changes". I've noticed that a
> > percentage (5-10%) of dists don't have a changes file, so it can be
>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:55:15AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> Thus, it seems the best option if we want to make sure Test::Harness is
> custmisable in this and other ways is to spin it off and create a better and
> more customizable test harnessing module, with an incompatible interface.
> A
I can confirm that all tests are now passing on Linux/x86 with r9202.
--
All tests successful.
Files=47, Tests=446, 40 wallclock secs (28.78 cusr + 4.18 csys = 32.96 CPU)
--
-J
--
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:24:09PM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> Done. All tests pass for tcl in leo-ctx5. (And with
Hi!
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 09:23:10AM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Yeah, something like that. "Changes, for a suitably flexible value of
> Changes"
I implemented this in CPANTS. It will be in the next release (tomorrow),
results should be available on Sunday morning.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:52:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rather than do any additional exploding, I'd like to propose the
additional kwalitee test "has_changes". I've noticed that a percentage
(5-10%) of dists don't have a changes file, so it can be
22 matches
Mail list logo
