On 7/3/06, Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you wanted to truly please DJB (with his "don't parse" mantra), then
you could open two extra filehandles, one for 'ok' and one for 'not ok',
and print the number of the test mod 256 (i.e. one byte per test, no
newline; just the byte) to e
On 7/4/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Original Message
From: Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This leads me to another question -- what to do about output that the
> program prints to STDOUT or STDERR? There are some modules that I use
> that insist on C-ing whenever someth
Original Message
From: Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This leads me to another question -- what to do about output that the
> program prints to STDOUT or STDERR? There are some modules that I use
> that insist on C-ing whenever something weird happens... will
> these mess up my
>> Anything else
>> Any output line that is not a plan, a test line or a diagnostic is
>> incorrect. How a harness handles the incorrect line is undefined.
>> Test::Harness silently ignores incorrect lines, but will become more
>> stringent in the future.
This leads me to another question -- what
On 3 Jul 2006, at 17:47, Ovid wrote:
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Its backwards compatible. The ..# lines are currently considered
junk and ignored.
Is this behavior documented anywhere?
[snip]
From Test::Harness::TAP
Anything else
Any output
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1. I want to name a group of tests rather than the individuals.
...
> Here's what we came up with.
>
> 1..10
> ..4 - name for this group
> ok 1
...
> Pros:
> * Its backwards compatible. The ..# lines are currently considere
On 03/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
>
> 4 no plan, with groups
>
> If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the harness
> will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
> th
If we don't have some way of signifying the end of a group in TAP then
it removes a chunk of the utility for the people writing things that
generate TAP - since everybody has to write their own checks that groups
actually output the number of tests that they should.
If we have an end-of-group
On 3 Jul 2006, at 13:56, Adam Kennedy wrote:
That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
4 no plan, with groups
If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the
harness
will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
this is not to use
That seems like a problem too but the one I'm trying to get at is
4 no plan, with groups
If your script exits prematurely after one of the groups, the harness
will not notice because everything looks just fine. The solution to
this is not to use "plan, with groups" because then you have to coun
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There's no way to declare a top-level plan. That is, I can't say how
>> > many groups of tests I'm going to run so there's effectively no plan,
>>
>> One point that
Fergal Daly wrote:
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no way to declare a top-level plan. That is, I can't say how
> many groups of tests I'm going to run so there's effectively no plan,
One point that Andy was extremely insistant on, and I think Schwern and
I agree
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no way to declare a top-level plan. That is, I can't say how
> many groups of tests I'm going to run so there's effectively no plan,
One point that Andy was extremely insistant on, and I think Schwern and
I agree, is that the main pl
There's no way to declare a top-level plan. That is, I can't say how
many groups of tests I'm going to run so there's effectively no plan,
One point that Andy was extremely insistant on, and I think Schwern and
I agree, is that the main plan is ALWAYS the total number of tests for
the entire t
On 01/07/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The PITA / TestBuilder2 BOF at YAPC whacked up this TAP extension.
Test groups in TAP. There are several use-cases here.
1. I want to name a group of tests rather than the individuals.
2. I don't want to have to count up the total numb
Fergal Daly wrote:
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
> whole hog with something like
>
> ..1
> OK 1
> ..2
> ...1
> OK 2
> OK 3
> ...2
> OK 4
> ..3
> OK5
I believe the conclusion here w
On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
> whole hog with something like
>
> ..1
> OK 1
> ..2
> ...1
> OK 2
> OK 3
> ...2
> OK 4
> ..3
> OK5
I believe the conclusion here was that because dema
Fergal Daly wrote:
It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
whole hog with something like
..1
OK 1
..2
...1
OK 2
OK 3
...2
OK 4
..3
OK5
I believe the conclusion here was that because demand for nested groups
appeared to be extremely limited, to START with just th
On 1 Jul 2006, at 23:38, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Cons?
* Doesn't handle nested groups - but I have to admit that's a use
case I've never wanted :-)
* Doesn't handle groups with an undefined number of tests. The
obvious solution would be to allow ".." sans numeric suffix so you
would
chromatic wrote:
On Saturday 01 July 2006 16:46, Fergal Daly wrote:
It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
whole hog with something like
..1
OK 1
..2
...1
OK 2
OK 3
...2
OK 4
..3
OK5
No one has provided an actual use case for it yet. YAGNI.
I've got plenty
On 02/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 01 July 2006 16:46, Fergal Daly wrote:
> It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
> whole hog with something like
>
> ..1
> OK 1
> ..2
> ...1
> OK 2
> OK 3
> ...2
> OK 4
> ..3
> OK5
No one has provided a
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 21:37:48 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> No one has provided an actual use case for it yet. YAGNI.
*cough* I did.
See the TAP::Harness thread... We had UT fixtures with subsections
at work, which were further grouped by class, but all emitted in the
same stream.
That was very
On Saturday 01 July 2006 16:46, Fergal Daly wrote:
> It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
> whole hog with something like
>
> ..1
> OK 1
> ..2
> ...1
> OK 2
> OK 3
> ...2
> OK 4
> ..3
> OK5
No one has provided an actual use case for it yet. YAGNI.
-- c
It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
whole hog with something like
..1
OK 1
..2
...1
OK 2
OK 3
...2
OK 4
..3
OK5
F
On 01/07/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The PITA / TestBuilder2 BOF at YAPC whacked up this TAP extension.
Test groups in TAP.
24 matches
Mail list logo
