Re: [Perlunit-devel] Is this thing on?

[Adam S. <ad...@sp...>]

Piers Cawley (pdc...@it...) wrote:
> *taps glass*

Sorry for the long delay, I've been suffering from lack of spare time
just like everyone else here it seems.  Anyway, I'm back now :-)

> Okay, if anyone's actually listening, I've just had a renaming fest in
> the PDC_REFACTOR branch. A whole bunch of those Test::Unit::TestFoo
> classes have become Test::Unit::Foo. Staying in place we have:
> 
> Test::Unit::TestRunner, Test::Unit::TkTestRunner,
> Test::Unit::TestSuite and Test::Unit::TestCase.
> 
> Please, check stuff out, take a look, play with it, let me know I'm
> not just doing this in a vacuum.

Cool stuff Piers, I like the sound of everything you've done in this
branch so far.

In the absence of any serious activity on HEAD, I think it will make
sense for me to play around with your branch, and base my
modifications over the next week or two on it (maybe I'll even branch
off your branch so I can commit stuff for you to play with?).  Then we
could consider getting it all merged back into HEAD for the next
release before huge branch divergence rears its ugly head and starts
causing big problems?  Of course, what to release is Christian's call
at the end of the day.

My todo list, IIRC (it's been a while):

  - Incorporate my T::U::Runner class patch that I posted on 5 March (!)
    That gives us a proper place to store runner state.

  - Incorporate my patch for improving error messages when a test case
    class fails to compile (currently just says "not found", which is
    very misleading).

  - Address my concerns with the current lack of inheritance of users'
    test suites from T::U::TestSuite (see March 7th post, subject
    "TestSuite inheritance and runner state").

  - Might be worth renaming to T::U::Suite while I'm at it?  I do like
    the renaming that Piers (and others?) have done along these lines
    so far.  Hmm, maybe not, given that my T::U::Runner patch already
    results in two classes T::U::Runner and T::U::TestRunner with
    distinct roles.

  - Get test coverage reports working really nicely.  I aim for
    per-package coverage reports, and per-method reports within each
    package too.

Any comments?