Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This works:
>>
>> yes, excellent randy. thanks for that. it still seems a little
>> hackish but
>> that's ok - hackish works for me if it means I can do what I want and
>> nobody
>> else needs to do extra work
On 2/9/06, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This works:
yes, excellent randy. thanks for that. it still seems a little hackish but
that's ok - hackish works for me if it means I can do what I want and nobody
else needs to do extra work :)
I made some tweaks to your format and added
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why n
>> One of the problems is going to be numbering, surely?
but it shouldn't need to be, right? I mean, TAP is merely a protocol and
there shouldn't be a requirement that the bookkeeping happen in the same
process as the TAP emitting process I wouldn't think. in fact, if someone
were implementing
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has
On 2/8/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > hi all :)
> >
> > there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
> > ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
> > plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan)
Adam Kennedy wrote:
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
It has to be set to the number of tests run in the o
This works:
---test.pl---
use Test::More tests => 1;
my $Test = Test::More->builder;
my $counter = $Test->current_test;
print qx!perl t/response.pl!;
$Test->current_test($counter + 1);
But why 1? Why not 5? or 10?
__END__
---response.pl---
use Test::More no_plan => 1;
Test::More->bui
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
with your suggestion I'm almost there:
1..1
ok 1 - this was a passing test
# No tests run!
What parts do you want left out?
Best,
David
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate p
Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi all :)
there's a feature split I'm itching for in Test::Builder, etc - the
ability to call is() and have it emit TAP free from the confines of
plan(). not that I don't want to call plan() (or no_plan) but I want to
do that in a completely separate perl interpreter. for
>> so, thoughts or ideas? am I making any sense?
>
>
> Yes, you are.
*whew*
:)
> I think that the subprocess can load Test::More and
> friends like this:
>
> use Test::More no_plan => 1;
> Test::More->builder->no_header(1);
cool, thanks.
>
> That will set No_Plan, Have_Plan, and No_Hea
On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:41, Geoffrey Young wrote:
so, I guess my question is whether the plan->is linkage can be
broken in
Test::Builder/Test::Harness/wherever and still keep the bookkeeping in
tact so that the library behaves the same way for the bulk case. or
maybe at least provide some optio
13 matches
Mail list logo
