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

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

Piers Cawley (pdc...@bo...) wrote:
> Adam Spiers <ad...@sp...> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, I think the branch is in a fairly ugly state at the moment.
> I have the horrible feeling I screwed up creating it, but I'm actually
> using (slightly doctored )branch code in a live project and it's
> feeling good.

It doesn't seem too bad.  After fixing a bareword problem (committed),
t/all_tests and t_assert pass OK.  I was also getting warnings from
TestCase::to_string, called from Exception::stringify, which were
fixed by this:

--- TestCase.pm.~1.19.4.9.~	Thu Oct 25 16:03:34 2001
+++ TestCase.pm	Fri Oct 26 17:03:54 2001
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
 sub to_string {
     my $self = shift;
     my $class = ref($self);
-    return $self->name() . "(" . $class . ")";
+    return $self->name() ? $self->name() . "(" . $class . ")" : $class;
 }
 
 sub make_test_from_coderef {

Haven't committed this though, as I'm not sure whether it hides
badness or not.  Should $self->{_name} be initialised at that point?
Also, if you raise an exception from within to_string(), you get
infinite recursion, although in this context to_string() is probably
already being called by exception-handling code, so I guess that's
inevitable.

I'm also getting a failure from t/try_examples:

  not ok 5
  # Test 5 got: 'TEST-RUN-SUMMARY
  # TIME-SUMMARY
  #
  # OK (3 tests)
  # ' (t/try_examples.t at line 81)
  #   Expected: 'Can't call method "run" on an undefined value at lib/Test/Unit/TestRunner.pm line 58.
  # '

I think that's examples/patch100132.  Why is it expecting that error?
Replacing the guru_checked value with a pass like the other two values results in

t/all_tests.........ok
t/assert............ok
t/try_examples......NOK 3Skipping example file 'examples/fail_example.pm', no guru-checked answer
t/try_examples......ok
All tests successful.

Hooray!  :-)

Did you have any other concerns with the branch that I should know
about before starting hacking on it?

> The naming's still ugly though...
> 
> T::U::UnitHarness
> T::U::HarnessUnit
> 
> What were we thinking?

Yeah, that is pretty bad.