> Please let me know when you do document the format and make
> sure to allow for extensions. I urge you do to so before
> the sample size, and divergent extensions, gets too large.
Patches are always welcome. Also, I don't see any sample size greater
than one on this, unless I'
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:27:02 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:41:59AM -0600, Scott Bolte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ) wrote:
> > I agree, but I still believe it would be good if Test::Harness
> > laid out syntax rules for extensions.
>
> There are no extensions. They're up
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 05:27:02PM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:41:59AM -0600, Scott Bolte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I agree, but I still believe it would be good if Test::Harness
> > laid out syntax rules for extensions.
>
> There are no extensions. They're
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:41:59AM -0600, Scott Bolte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I agree, but I still believe it would be good if Test::Harness
> laid out syntax rules for extensions.
There are no extensions. They're up to whoever wants to. I'm certainly
not going to define arbitra
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:03:42AM -0600, Scott Bolte wrote:
> I'd like to propose an addition to the Test::Harness parsing
> rules to support dependency analysis. That, in turn, allows
> monitoring for file changes and selective, immediate
> re-execution of test files. Is
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:34:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Test::Harness parses 'ok' and 'not ok' and 'Bail out'... Test::*
> modules produce the output Test::Harness parses. So your extra logic
> to parse "depends on" would go into your Test::Harness extension, but
> the depends_on() funct
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:14:33PM -0600, Scott Bolte wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:22:24 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > It wouldn't be Test::Harness, it would be a seperate Test::Depends or
> > something.
>
> I could live with that, but why do you think it needs to
> be sep
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:22:24 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> It wouldn't be Test::Harness, it would be a seperate Test::Depends or
> something.
I could live with that, but why do you think it needs to
be separate?
The T::H documentation makes it quite clear that there
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:03:42AM -0600, Scott Bolte wrote:
> Building on the mini_harness.plx example from
> Test::Harness::Straps, I added checks for declarations like
> the following:
>
> DEPENDS_ON "file" # implicit test file dependency
> "t
I'd like to propose an addition to the Test::Harness parsing
rules to support dependency analysis. That, in turn, allows
monitoring for file changes and selective, immediate
re-execution of test files. Is this the right forum for
that discussion?
Bui
10 matches
Mail list logo
