However, if slurp_file fails it raises an exception and aborts the
whole TAP unexpectedly, which is pretty unclean. So I'd suggest to
keep the eval, as attached. I tested it by changing the file name so
that the slurp fails.
Seem quite unnecessary. We haven't found that to be an issue elsewhe
Seem quite unnecessary. We haven't found that to be an issue elsewhere
in the code where slurp_file is used. And in the present case we know
the file exists because we got its name from list_files().
Agreed. That's an exchange between a hard failure mid-test and a
failure while letting the w
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:01:07AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 6/26/21 2:47 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> However, if slurp_file fails it raises an exception and aborts the
>> whole TAP unexpectedly, which is pretty unclean. So I'd suggest to
>> keep the eval, as attached. I tested it by changi
On 6/26/21 2:47 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew & Michaël,
>
> My 0.02€:
>
>> There's a whole lot wrong with this code. To start with, why is that
>> unchecked eval there.
>
> Yep. The idea was that other tests would go on being collected eg if
> the file is not found, but it should hav
Hello Andrew & Michaël,
My 0.02€:
There's a whole lot wrong with this code. To start with, why is that
unchecked eval there.
Yep. The idea was that other tests would go on being collected eg if the
file is not found, but it should have been checked anyway.
And why is it reading in log fil
