On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:39 +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Test names shouldnt be optional.
I disagree. I would find it cumbersome to have to come up with a
description for each and every test.
> Finding a particular test in a file by its number can be quite
> difficult, especially in test files wher
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 19:20 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> There's not really a mistake, more that if a given reference is overloaded
> in several ways its not possible for Test::More to guess which one is the
> canonical representation. Should this blessed, string and array overloaded
> hash
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 14:40 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Does doing it in two steps work? Instead of:
>
> > is_deeply ($obj->get ('some_flags'), ['value-one', 'value-two']);
>
> perhaps:
>
> my @flags = @{ $obj->get( 'some_flags' ) };
> is_deeply( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [ 'value-one', 'value-two' ]
Aloha,
it looks like Test::More 0.61 broke Glib's test suite again, so I'm
beginning to wonder if we're doing something stupid. Hence the
question: How do you properly test an object's overloaded array
dereference operator @{}?
When we initially wrote the tests, we simply used is_deeply() or
eq(
