On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:02:58PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Or even more trivially, take Test::AtRuntime and swap
> >out Test::Builder::ok() with something that dies on failure.
> [snip]
>
> I was thinking about the ability to have an assertion block - so you
> could do (something like):
>
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:43:26AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> This does mean, though, that it won't play nicely with versions of Perl < 5.6.0. Is
> that trade
> off acceptable?
I'll throw in the fallback "if DEBUG" style
TEST {
my $sky = look('up');
is( $sky, 'blue' );
} if
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:22:43AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Could these instead be subroutine attributes? I can see a lot of
> advantages there.
I know very little about subroutine attributes, so you're going to have
to investigate that one.
Keep in mind, though, that we want the *whole call t
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > Ooooh! I just had a great idea. Use "TEST { ... }" instead of "TEST:
> > { ... }"
> > in Test::AtRuntime.
>
> Could these instead be subroutine attributes? I can see a lot of
> ad
On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Ooooh! I just had a great idea. Use "TEST { ... }" instead of "TEST:
{ ... }"
in Test::AtRuntime. If the user has Filter::Simple, use that to strip
out
the TEST blocks. Otherwise, its a function call to TEST() passing in
a cod
On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 01:03 am, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Class::Contract has always bothered me as way too much Kool-Aid to
drink in one sitting.
I completely agree. Having the ability to apply pre/post/invariant
functionality to normal Perl classes has been on my to do list for
years
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:02:19PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> > The only part missing is the ability to shut the tests off once you've
> > released it to production.
>
> You could perhaps use the assertion feature of perl >= 5.9.0
> (assertion.pm an
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:09:22AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> - Rather than running tests at live time, I'm more often doing the
> opposite. I have assertions that I only want to switch on at testing
> time since that is when I'm exercising things that might break.
>
> - This sort of
On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 09:07 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
I was thinking about inline testing, Test::Class and such and how it
would
be nice if we could just write test functions right in our code, like
assertions. Like Carp::Assert::More, but I want all the Test:: stuff
available.
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> The only part missing is the ability to shut the tests off once you've
> released it to production.
You could perhaps use the assertion feature of perl >= 5.9.0
(assertion.pm and -A switch -- yes I know it lacks docs.)
Make that...
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-AtRuntime-0.01.tar.gz
--
I knew right away that my pants and your inner child could be best friends.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:07:15PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Another way is to use a TEST: block
> and have Filter::Simple strip them out.
>
> TEST: {
> cmp_ok( ... );
> }
> Questions? Comments? Approval?
Hell, why wait for wiser heads?
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/Tes
I had an idea yesterday. On more than one occassion, a I've been asked
about running tests against a live site. My usual waffle is to talk about
assertions or to build a seperate test suite which is explicitly non-modifying.
Or something Skud came up with which was to tag blocks of tests in the s
13 matches
Mail list logo
