Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

Well, the author of Test::More seems to differ on that: Although personally I'd think I'd read into that, that forking shouldn't cause problems, with "and you should be able to emit test output on both sides" as a bonus extended DWIM fea

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:49:15AM -0600 Chris Dolan wrote: > On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:55 AM, Tassilo von Parseval wrote: > > >>Do you think this might work better, or could be implemented as, a > >>seperate Test::Fork type module? > > > >It certainly could be done. But it would essentially share 90%

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:55 AM, Tassilo von Parseval wrote: Do you think this might work better, or could be implemented as, a seperate Test::Fork type module? It certainly could be done. But it would essentially share 90% of its code with Test::Builder. Umm, subclassing? :-) It's simple rea

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On 3/28/06, Tassilo von Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:27:15AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: > > That's why I said you prefix with a ".". > > > > This has the effect of making it not a number as far as TAP is > > concernted, instead it becomes part of the name. > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +1000 Adam Kennedy wrote: > Tassilo von Parseval wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I was told that Test::More patches should now go to this list so here we > >go. > > > >The attached patch serves as a draft for enabling test-scripts that fork > >without the test-counter gettin

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:27:15AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: > That's why I said you prefix with a ".". > > This has the effect of making it not a number as far as TAP is > concernted, instead it becomes part of the name. > > Of course it would be better to allow "."s in the number, that way you >

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

That's why I said you prefix with a ".". This has the effect of making it not a number as far as TAP is concernted, instead it becomes part of the name. Of course it would be better to allow "."s in the number, that way you can check that they are increasing properly and allows you to have sub-pl

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

Tassilo von Parseval wrote: Hi, I was told that Test::More patches should now go to this list so here we go. The attached patch serves as a draft for enabling test-scripts that fork without the test-counter getting confused. It does so by using a Storable imaged shared between the processes. Th

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

What's changing the protocol? As I understand it from http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.56/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod the test number must be a number. It does refer specifically to it having to start with a digit, but I'm assuming that by number it means [1-9]\d* .1.2 would

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On 3/28/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tassilo von Parseval wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:47:54AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: > > > >>A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to > >>output test "numbers" like > >> > >>.1.1 > >>.1.2 > >>.1.3 > >>.2.1 > >>.2.2

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

Tassilo von Parseval wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:47:54AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to output test "numbers" like .1.1 .1.2 .1.3 .2.1 .2.2 .1.4 etc where the first number signifies the thread/process and the second is just an i

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:47:54AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: > A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to > output test "numbers" like > > .1.1 > .1.2 > .1.3 > .2.1 > .2.2 > .1.4 > > etc where the first number signifies the thread/process and the second > is just an increasin

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:29:43PM +1000 Adam Kennedy wrote: > Without saying you shouldn't be sending them here, but as an aside... > > Who told you to send patches to the list? Andy Lester told Stas Bekman who told me. > Is there a reason that the rt.cpan.org queue is no longer useful? I don'

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to output test "numbers" like .1.1 .1.2 .1.3 .2.1 .2.2 .1.4 etc where the first number signifies the thread/process and the second is just an increasing sequence within that thread. The . is there at the start so that Test::Harness doe

Re: [PATCH] Forking tests with Test::More

Without saying you shouldn't be sending them here, but as an aside... Who told you to send patches to the list? Is there a reason that the rt.cpan.org queue is no longer useful? Adam K Tassilo von Parseval wrote: Hi, I was told that Test::More patches should now go to this list so here we go