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

[Piers C. <pdc...@bo...>]

Adam Spiers <ad...@sp...> writes:

> 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?

Not sure now. Nothing's leaping to mind.

> 
>> The naming's still ugly though...
>> 
>> T::U::UnitHarness
>> T::U::HarnessUnit
>> 
>> What were we thinking?
> 
> Yeah, that is pretty bad.

Quite, quite *staggeringly* awful. I'm pleased to say it was like that
when I arrived, nothing to do with me squire and all that...

By the way, I think we're going to have to start playing the name of
the game. From talking to Mike Schwern at YAPC::Europe, it was obvious
that there was some confusion about what PerlUnit was, compounded by
the belief that Test/Unit.pm was the 'main' interface, rather than
some syntactic sugar we bolted on the side.

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?