On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:50:55PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> >> I might like to signal Devel::Cover that func() has a constant return (or
> >> lack thereof).
> >
> > I don't know if I would like this feature. To me it would allow you to
> > falsely skew the results of the Devel::Cover outp
On May 22, 2004, at 7:43 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
This extra color still leaves place for questions on the side of
the management so there could be a flag such as --mcl
(manager compatible report) that would turn all the purple parts
to be green.
Manager Compatible Reports :) I like that.
Although, I
purple
>
> >> I might like to signal Devel::Cover that func() has a constant return (or
> >> lack thereof).
> >
> >
>
> however, in the process of development we are required to analyze any of the
> inevitable gaps and decide whether the unhit condition is valid. if it is
> we write a test f
chromatic wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:02, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>
>>another thing that is keeping me from 100% right now is the
>>classic
>>
>> my $class = ref $self || $self;
>>
>>where the only way to satisfy the conditional is to call My::Foo::bar()
>>using functional syntax instead
>> I might like to signal Devel::Cover that func() has a constant return (or
>> lack thereof).
>
>
> I don't know if I would like this feature. To me it would allow you to
> falsely skew the results of the Devel::Cover output. I look at
> Devel::Cover as a harshly objective analysis of my test-c
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:02, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> another thing that is keeping me from 100% right now is the
> classic
>
> my $class = ref $self || $self;
>
> where the only way to satisfy the conditional is to call My::Foo::bar()
> using functional syntax instead of a method syntax.
Woul
On May 21, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
Full coverage isn't always possible, and the lack of it isn't
necessarily a problem.
I fully agree. however, once you start using a tool like this,
management
will inevitably ask "what's that 93% about?" and the answer is
sometimes
complex an
> Full coverage isn't always possible, and the lack of it isn't
> necessarily a problem.
I fully agree. however, once you start using a tool like this, management
will inevitably ask "what's that 93% about?" and the answer is sometimes
complex and subject to judgement: "well, Devel::Cover is j
Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
>> $x{foo} ||= 1;
>
> I have not tested you recent patch. That might have solved this one
> too as this is very similar.
>
> $a = func() || croak("we have some problem");
Actually, that's quite different.
> According to Devel::Cover the above statetement has 3 states. On
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:34:39PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> > hi paul.
> >
> > I've found that in a statement like
> >
> > $x{foo} ||= 1;
> >
>
> This is unlikely to be the only case in which I have not fully
> understood the subtleties of the
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:08:19PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> well, I was trying to be a good citizen and provide a useful test case
> (rather than a tarball that merely exhibited the issue). I did add
And I appreciate it.
> something to cond_or and ran 'make test TEST_FILES=t/acond_or.t' b
> This is unlikely to be the only case in which I have not fully
> understood the subtleties of the op tree, and so I am grateful for
> reports such as this.
I'll keep them coming, then :)
>
> The following patch should fix it, and will be in the next release,
> hopefully coming next week:
exce
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:34:39PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi paul.
>
> I've found that in a statement like
>
> $x{foo} ||= 1;
>
> I can't ever satisfy the first condition in the "condition coverage" matrix
> (0,0) since 1 is always true. is it desirable to remove fixed truth values
hi paul.
I've found that in a statement like
$x{foo} ||= 1;
I can't ever satisfy the first condition in the "condition coverage" matrix
(0,0) since 1 is always true. is it desirable to remove fixed truth values
like this from the truth table?
I tried taking a look at adding the condition t
14 matches
Mail list logo
