* Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26T08:38:15]
> perl591delta lists this todo for 5.10:
>
> Allow lexical aliases (maybe via the syntax "my \$alias = \$foo".
I have no idea why "p5p" in my aliases file was an alias for p6l.
Clearly I have my o
perl591delta lists this todo for 5.10:
Allow lexical aliases (maybe via the syntax "my \$alias = \$foo".
I seem to recall some discussion of this, but not any specifics, and lazy
Googling wants me to think it was all in 2002. It doesn't seem to be
implemented.
Was this put off until a future
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-05T15:28:28]
> The grant is about Test::Run, which is a fork of Test::Harness that aims to
> greatly refactor and modularise it. I've already revamped and re-written a
> lot of code for it, but there's still a lot that needs to be done.
[...]
> Some o
* Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-31T10:55:20]
> In short
> * Yes running one test method at a time is a sensible things to do.
> * No - there currently isn't a simple way of doing this
> * Good news - Ovid has submitted a patch to make it easy
> * Bad news - I've been too bone idle to a
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27T23:48:43]
> The questions that are being asked are for the user's benefit. That is
> NOT being a freeloader. Freeloading is taken something from the user and
> providing nothing in return.
She's providing her free code in return.
--
rjbs
signatu
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-23T12:46:13]
> So I guess its down to this: pick a goal. Either drop the gaming aspects or
> drop any remaining pretense that its a measurement of module quality. Since
> the whole kwalitee thing is pretty flimsy to begin with, I'd go with just
> m
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19T15:24:51]
> On 4/19/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There are other things that test test output, like Test::Tester. Will they
> > break? To find out, I downloaded a pristene copy of the lates
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-19T04:02:31]
> From a parser standpoint, there's no clean way of distinguishing that
> from what the test functions are going to output. As a result, I
> really think that "diag" and normal test failure information should be
> marked differently (instead of the
* Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-16T23:33:19]
> It's not really ready to be publicized, and I haven't touched it in a little
> while, but I'll mention PyTap: http://svn.codesimply.com/projects/pytap
I got a request, off-list, for more info, so here is s
* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-16T23:08:26]
> I'm adding a section to Test::Harness::TAP on non-Perl TAP.
>
> http://svn.perl.org/modules/Test-Harness/trunk/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod
>
> If you know of one, please send me some text to add.
It's not really ready to be publicized, and I
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07T08:32:35]
> Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> but that only tells you the objects underlying intrinsic type, it
> doesnt tell you if you can dereferenc
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-05T10:23:45]
> On 4/5/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That said, I don't dispute the point that it can be wildly obnoxious when
> > "Something::Trivial" requires DBD::MySQL and Data::Dump::Strea
* "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-05T02:39:20]
> I'll just mention two things, both very different
>
> A. CORE modules are tested on all supported architectures, while CPAN modules
>do not give that guarantee. The smoke system still causes all possible
>combinations to be tes
* "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-04T10:40:39]
> And then still people make more of the same. Take Getopt::Long. A perfect and
> very functional module. Full of features, matured, and actively maintained.
> Now go look at CPAN, and see how many people either do not like it or find
> o
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-01T03:26:55]
> And I think you've conveniently sidestepped my main point which is
> that TODO tests passing are errors. Consider you have two TODO tests,
> both of which depend on a common set of functionality. Both should
> pass or both should fail.
I just
* Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-06T09:44:14]
> * has_signature: a SIGNATURE file exists, and is a valid signatur.
That seems reasonable, even though I dread signing all my dists. I feel
like it will be a big hassle, but maybe I'm just afraid of change.
> * has_pod_index: The POD contains at
* Pete Krawczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-03T12:46:48]
>
> The solution I see is to make sure the object can() isa(), thus avoiding
> the die in the process:
>
It was using ->isa instead of UNIVERSAL::isa because isa might be
overridden. Surely the same could apply to ->can.
--
rjbs
pgp
* "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15T08:23:57]
>
> Would this look for Change OR ChangeLog?
> Both seem to be popular on CPAN.
...and some modules have a HISTORY or CHANGES section of POD, and DBI
has DBI::Changes.
--
rjbs
pgpcBJzXHBJhG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-12T09:10:21]
> Won't "&is_code" get called that way? Should this be:
>
> ok defined \&is_code;
No. C will do the right thing, here. Taking a reference to an
undefined sub, however, will always return a defined value: a coderef
that, when called,
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-11T10:10:31]
> >Note: The last kwalitee test, the one related to Devel::Cover, is
> >considered dangerous by a non-trivial percentage of the community,
> >and there's been a lot of debate on whether it should be removed.
>
> Sorry, I should have said Po
Yesterday, hide gave me some sweet example code to use
HTTP::Server::Simple and Test::WWW::Mechanize to test Rubric's CGI bits.
I've started working with them, and they make me happy.
I've realized that the server, which is forked from the test script,
doesn't have its usage show up in Devel::Cov
* Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14T15:37:07]
> On 14 Apr 2005, at 11:36, Leon Brocard wrote:
> >Oh, I forgot to mention to perl-qa that I wrote Test::Expect:
> > http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Expect/
>
> It's nice. Already used it :-)
Does anyone who has used both Test::Expect an
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-06T23:29:40]
> >Finally, the scoreboard does have a purpose. Part of the original idea of
> >CPANTS was to provide an automated checklist for a good distribution.
> >
> >Has a README... check
> >Declares a $VERSION... check
> >
* "David A. Golden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-02T05:27:18]
> Andy Lester wrote:
> >Why is there a scoreboard? Why do we care about rankings? Why is it
> >necessary to compare one measure to another? What purpose is being
> >served?
>
> Why is there XP on perlmonks? Or Karma on Slashdot? Or
* "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-14T11:28:19]
> About spaces, another thing springs to mind, for which I would gladly kill the
> responsible people to allow it (I bet M$ was the first to push it): Spaces in
> database table and field names. DON'T! NEVER! Once you start it, you will
>
* David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-17T00:51:22]
> So, what's to be lost by having the inc directories default to the
> contents of @INC when you load Devel::Cover rather than at install
> time?
Presumably the problem is that by runtime, lib and blib directories are
already in @INC, so
* Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-31T04:24:55]
> Is there a way to make Test::Harness do this?
If nothing else, in the given case, it would have made more sense to use
is()
is(0, 1, "Zero shouldn't equal one.");
That will print got/expected values on error, even when not verbose.
-
* Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-02T10:12:22]
> What kind of useful diagnostics could this module emit in case of
> failure? IMO they have to be precisely detailed.
# failed comparisons follow:
# expected $1: (610)
# got $1: 691
# expected $4: x258
# got $4: 258
That'
I was going nuts recently, trying to figure out why I couldn't use
is_deeply to compare objects. I've finally determined that it's only an
issue (as far as I see) when comparing objects that overload
dereferencing to their implementation type.
The attached code should fail all three tests; at no
* Pete Krawczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-09T13:10:52]
>
> Devel::Cover will always see that as a partial test, and never a full
> test:
> [ ... ]
> Is that a bug, then? Or is it something else? And how should I notate
> that, keeping in mind the goals of Phalanx, so that it's clearly visibl
* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-11T15:44:27]
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:33:44PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I prefer to eliminate extra noise. The situation I'm in is, I just
> > started using T::I, so only a few modules have any tests, and I would
> > see doz
* Michael Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-07T23:13:02]
> On 6/7/2004 9:20 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
> >
> > The "ALT attribute as tooltip" thing isn't portable, though.
>
> I don't use ALT, I use TITLE. That's the "right way" according to the W3C and
> supported by at least IE and Mozilla-based b
* "Francisco Olarte Sanz." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-25T13:58:21]
> ? Which aproach is better, have a single independent huge test file or
> several interdependent smaller ones ( w/ notes in the readme stating
> test dependence ) ?
The better approach is the one that makes it most likely for yo
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-06T20:04:24]
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 07:46:24PM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> > Alright, I know this is tangential to QA, but I'm trying to access
> > rt.cpan.org to update a bug on a module I'm working on. I can&#
Alright, I know this is tangential to QA, but I'm trying to access
rt.cpan.org to update a bug on a module I'm working on. I can't log
into rt.cpan.org using my PAUSE credentials.
I emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] a month ago, and again this
week, and received only an automated reply. I was assigned r
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-04T16:51:03]
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:26:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'd say a lot of the trouble comes from the fact that you're using the
> > automated test framework for something that isn't an automated test.
>
> But it could be
36 matches
Mail list logo
