You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to test-dev@perl.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2005/04/29 17:01:49 UTC
Test::Build requirement?
All my regression tests failed last night like this:
...
server localhost.localdomain:8541 listening (proxy_https_http)
[ info] adding source lib .../Apache-Test/lib to @INC
-withtestmore error: Test::Builder version 0.18_01 required--this is
only version 0.17 at .../Apache-Test/lib/Apache/Test.pm line 67.
it's pretty much a requirement for me that httpd-test works with stock
perl distributions; can this be fixed?
joe
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
>> So in the end, if a sufficiently recent version of Test-More is going to
>> be bundled in the svn repos, the test suite *will* work with e.g. the
>> RHEL3 perl 5.8.0 package? If so, I'm happy...
>
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
yeah, I'm sorry - I both forgot about that then remembered over the weekend
but was away...
--Geoff
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:15:16PM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>
>>>I _think_ I took care of it. let me know if we're not ok now.
>>
>>Thanks Geoff :0)
>
>
> Yup, thanks, it works now.
>
>
>>>is it a really big deal to require Test::More? from a developer standpoint
>>>I don't think it is, since Test::More is pretty much the defacto testing
>>>standard in the perl world. but maybe distribtion folks have different
>>>thoughts. if so, if you are given enough time (like, say, we won't require
>>>T::M for a few months) is that helpful or sufficient?
>>
>>What seems to be the problem? We have already decided to bundle Test-More.
>>I didn't have a chance to do that yet in that -unstable branch. I was
>>planning to do it later. It just wasn't supposed to be committed yet to
>>the main branch, was a slip on my side, as I didn't re-check out after
>>switching externals :(
>
>
> So in the end, if a sufficiently recent version of Test-More is going to
> be bundled in the svn repos, the test suite *will* work with e.g. the
> RHEL3 perl 5.8.0 package? If so, I'm happy...
Yes, that's the idea.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:15:16PM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> >I _think_ I took care of it. let me know if we're not ok now.
>
> Thanks Geoff :0)
Yup, thanks, it works now.
> >is it a really big deal to require Test::More? from a developer standpoint
> >I don't think it is, since Test::More is pretty much the defacto testing
> >standard in the perl world. but maybe distribtion folks have different
> >thoughts. if so, if you are given enough time (like, say, we won't require
> >T::M for a few months) is that helpful or sufficient?
>
> What seems to be the problem? We have already decided to bundle Test-More.
> I didn't have a chance to do that yet in that -unstable branch. I was
> planning to do it later. It just wasn't supposed to be committed yet to
> the main branch, was a slip on my side, as I didn't re-check out after
> switching externals :(
So in the end, if a sufficiently recent version of Test-More is going to
be bundled in the svn repos, the test suite *will* work with e.g. the
RHEL3 perl 5.8.0 package? If so, I'm happy...
Regards,
joe
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> Joe Orton wrote:
>
>>All my regression tests failed last night like this:
>>
>>...
>>server localhost.localdomain:8541 listening (proxy_https_http)
>>[ info] adding source lib .../Apache-Test/lib to @INC
>>-withtestmore error: Test::Builder version 0.18_01 required--this is
>>only version 0.17 at .../Apache-Test/lib/Apache/Test.pm line 67.
>
>
> I _think_ I took care of it. let me know if we're not ok now.
Thanks Geoff :0)
>>it's pretty much a requirement for me that httpd-test works with stock
>>perl distributions; can this be fixed?
>
>
> hmm...
>
> well, let's discuss this. the purpose of the test-more-unstable branch is
> to rewrite Apache-Test so that it uses Test::More instead of Test.pm. there
> are a bunch of reasons why I think this is good, but I think the main
> motivator is that Test.pm can't handle threaded perls properly under some
> conditions (stas can add more eventually).
Right. Test.pm simply doesn't cut.
> is it a really big deal to require Test::More? from a developer standpoint
> I don't think it is, since Test::More is pretty much the defacto testing
> standard in the perl world. but maybe distribtion folks have different
> thoughts. if so, if you are given enough time (like, say, we won't require
> T::M for a few months) is that helpful or sufficient?
What seems to be the problem? We have already decided to bundle Test-More.
I didn't have a chance to do that yet in that -unstable branch. I was
planning to do it later. It just wasn't supposed to be committed yet to
the main branch, was a slip on my side, as I didn't re-check out after
switching externals :(
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> All my regression tests failed last night like this:
>
> ...
> server localhost.localdomain:8541 listening (proxy_https_http)
> [ info] adding source lib .../Apache-Test/lib to @INC
> -withtestmore error: Test::Builder version 0.18_01 required--this is
> only version 0.17 at .../Apache-Test/lib/Apache/Test.pm line 67.
I _think_ I took care of it. let me know if we're not ok now.
>
> it's pretty much a requirement for me that httpd-test works with stock
> perl distributions; can this be fixed?
hmm...
well, let's discuss this. the purpose of the test-more-unstable branch is
to rewrite Apache-Test so that it uses Test::More instead of Test.pm. there
are a bunch of reasons why I think this is good, but I think the main
motivator is that Test.pm can't handle threaded perls properly under some
conditions (stas can add more eventually).
is it a really big deal to require Test::More? from a developer standpoint
I don't think it is, since Test::More is pretty much the defacto testing
standard in the perl world. but maybe distribtion folks have different
thoughts. if so, if you are given enough time (like, say, we won't require
T::M for a few months) is that helpful or sufficient?
--Geoff
Re: Test::Build requirement?
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> All my regression tests failed last night like this:
>
> ...
> server localhost.localdomain:8541 listening (proxy_https_http)
> [ info] adding source lib .../Apache-Test/lib to @INC
> -withtestmore error: Test::Builder version 0.18_01 required--this is
> only version 0.17 at .../Apache-Test/lib/Apache/Test.pm line 67.
>
> it's pretty much a requirement for me that httpd-test works with stock
> perl distributions; can this be fixed?
That's weird. I thought I've committed that change in the branch that I've
made. It looks like switching to another branch didn't quite work :( sorry
about that. Could you please revert my Apache-Test changes from yesterday?
Unfortunately I can't do it now, since I'm leaving for the airport in a
moment. Thanks a lot!
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com