On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:02:07PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > I would do it in the same way as if this had nothing to do with tests.
> > That is, abstract away the common code into a module, which can also
> > live under t/
>
> That would be a lot of
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I would do it in the same way as if this had nothing to do with tests.
> That is, abstract away the common code into a module, which can also
> live under t/
That would be a lot of work in this case. I found an easier
solution. In tweek-then-foo.t:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:20:18PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Hello all. I've got a test I want to write, but I don't know to write
> it (easily). I've got a test script, call it foo.t which uses
> Test::More and runs under Test::Harness. Now I want to make a new
> test script tweek-then-foo.t
Hello all. I've got a test I want to write, but I don't know to write
it (easily). I've got a test script, call it foo.t which uses
Test::More and runs under Test::Harness. Now I want to make a new
test script tweek-then-foo.t which tweeks the system and then ensures
that foo.t still passes. Ho
