I have commited several revisions and additions to the 03handle.t test
file to the SVN repository. They are detailed as follows:
- increased number of tests from 68 to 101
- added tests to check conditions/assumptions prior to running
groups of tests,
which compliment the testing of th
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 06:15:58PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I see a few issues crop up with -T in the she-bang line (I made the
> change to my working copy to see), but when I do 'prove -T' I see the
> same issues crop up, plus then the zvpp* stuff fails (it basically
> fails to l
I have committed a small set of changes to the svn repository, here are
the details:
For sake of consistency throughout all the tests, I have set the
she-bang line on all to be:
#!perl -w
NOTE: I have not removed any instances of $^W=1 in the tests although
it really is no longer neede
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:39PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> A question for the class:
>
> Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we
> also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well?
It's sufficient. And no, don't remove it and don't change to "use warnin
Tim,
I see a few issues crop up with -T in the she-bang line (I made the
change to my working copy to see), but when I do 'prove -T' I see the
same issues crop up, plus then the zvpp* stuff fails (it basically
fails to load the regular test file).
I think this makes sense, the zppp* files shoul
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:48:47PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
>
> I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI
> es
A question for the class:
Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we
also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well?
Steve
On May 11, 2004, at 5:39 PM, Ovid wrote:
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I revers
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and
> say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w
> flag.
I always find it easier to roll back unwritten code :)
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is Evil
As I said, my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I have never
known a world without the warnings pragma :)
If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and
say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w
flag.
Steve
On May 11, 2004, at 5:26 PM
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert
> them to use the warnings pragma.
Does that mean you don't want to support versions of Perl prior to 5.6? I would think
that should
be up to Tim.
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is
Andy, Tim,
I think Andy is right, we should use the -T flag.
I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert
them to use the warnings pragma. I assume this will be backwards
compatible enough, but my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I
may be missing something.
Do y
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI
especially, since we're dealing with tainted data if it comes from a DB,
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> Tim, Andy,
>
> Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
>
> Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the
> 'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for
> 41prof
Tim, Andy,
Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the
'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for
41prof_dump.t and 42prof_data.t. Are we not using 'skip_all'? If so, I
will remove
On Mon 10 May 2004 19:40, stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository. I
> am mostly still working on converting the scripts to use Test::More,
> but I have managed to slip in some additional tests here and there. The
> changes ar
OK, one more for tonight. It's the last of the Test.pm-using .t files.
Index: t/41prof_dump.t
===
--- t/41prof_dump.t (revision 335)
+++ t/41prof_dump.t (working copy)
@@ -1,36 +1,27 @@
-#!perl -w
+#!perl -Tw
use strict;
Why should you guys have all the fun? Here's my patch.
* Adds a -T flag ('cause really, shouldn't all of DBI be able to run
under taint mode?)
* Uses Test::More instead of Test.
* Escapes out properly with skip_all.
* Adds an isa_ok() for all object creation statements.
* Added some comments here
Tim,
I made another update today, here are the details of the changes:
07kids.t
- changed it to a skip_all for DBI::PurePerl
- Increased the number of tests from 11 to 20
- Added tests to exercise the $dbh's Kids/ActiveKids attributes more
by creati
On May 10, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:40:55PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository.
Thanks!
I got an assortment of warnings from various tests. I suspect you
didn't run a plain "make test" before the checki
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:29:53PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:40:55PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> > I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository.
> The changes have turned up a warning that ought to have been produced
> before: "DBI handle cleared
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:40:55PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository.
Thanks!
I got an assortment of warnings from various tests. I suspect you
didn't run a plain "make test" before the checkin (please do).
I've checked in fixes for t
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:51:48PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> On May 10, 2004, at 1:46 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
> >On Mon 10 May 2004 19:40, stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository. I
> >>am mostly still working on c
On May 10, 2004, at 1:46 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Mon 10 May 2004 19:40, stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository. I
am mostly still working on converting the scripts to use Test::More,
but I have managed to slip in some additi
I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository. I
am mostly still working on converting the scripts to use Test::More,
but I have managed to slip in some additional tests here and there. The
changes are as follows:
01basics.t
- Changed file from custom "ok" routine to use Te
24 matches
Mail list logo
