t would raw-test
show for this?
is($user,"testuser$id","Test user name correctly generated");
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
smarter
people than I in contract law have worked it out before me, and I'm
intelligent enough to trust their judgements.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
e_condition;
plan tests => 22;
skip_all is a plan descriptor and as such needs to be given to plan.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
ou post an example? The logical spot for having the module
}"phone home" would be in the Makefile.PL. I also glanced at some tests,
}but didn't see anything there, either.
Look in the Build.PL, which Makefile.PL also calls.
http://search.cpan.org/src/NICOLAW/WWW-Dilbert-1.19/B
quot;$class->can(...)" );
$tb->diag('can_ok() called with no methods');
======
The patch does not address a method name that is undefined.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
lly be the best fix, but I'd rather
not see the incoming object have a method called if it's not even blessed.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
t away from the block in question.
}Second, if it's not a valid invocant, you need to wrap the whole
}expression in an eval block.
Again, this is already done, but unlike other places (e.g. Scalar::Util)
that run an eval that might die, $SIG{__DIE__} is not localized.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczy
f
going back to 5.4.0.
Stealing the code from Scalar::Util isn't necessarily the best fix either.
Does anyone have a better way of checking whether an object is blessed
that's backportable through core?
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:14:34 -0500
}* Pete Krawczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-03T12:46:48]
}>
}> The solution I see is to make sure the object can() isa(), thus avoid
ect, $class) ) {
+my $ref = ref $object;
+$diag = "$obj_name isn't a '$class' it's a '$ref'";
+}
+}
And that makes prove happy once more.
Thanks,
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
Subject: prove with Devel::Cover example?
From: Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:44:53 + (UTC)
}How can I use 'prove' and Devel::Cover together? I tried:
HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MDevel::Cover prove file.t
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
arily public right now, but if I had a hardware-level
test suite that simulated what I was actually doing, I could find out much
quicker if that new stick of RAM I put in my computer was going to cause
unexpected behavior.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
I had written a private module for myself that allows exit() to be changed
on-the-fly so that it could be explicitly changed for shorter periods of
time than "the entire script". I never released it, though.
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
ir POD documentation.
I agree completely that documenting private interfaces within a POD doc
will do little to help the average developer who just wants to use the
module, and may in fact wind up causing problems for a module developer
that changes the internal structure of their module in
place in a regular
"make test" run?
-Pete K
--
Pete Krawczyk
perl at bsod dot net
15 matches
Mail list logo
