Re: Test.pm & t/force_todo refactoring idea

Hi, 
 
Stevan Little <stevan <at> iinteractive.com> writes: 
> - Should we remove all the todo_* functions and just use the  
> t/force_todo file? 
 
the idea was that t/force_todo lists the tests which are only 
TODOed because of release preparation, and the todo_* functions 
mark tests which are real TODO tests. 
 
If we take this way, then we should certainly rename t/force_todo 
to t/todo_tests (or sth. similar). 
 
> - Should we do away with the t/force_todo file and introduce a  
> force_todo() function? 
>  
> The idea is to move from the more centralized t/force_todo file to a  
> more decentralized force_todo() function which would accept a list of  
> test numbers which would be forced-TODO on a per-file basis. 
 
The idea was that t/force_todo can be deleted/cleared after a release, 
so all tests which were only force_todoed were instantly unTODOed. 
 
But if we remove all todo_* functions and go the todo_tests way, then 
we really should use a sub (todo_tests(...), for example), as you 
propose. 
 
>  force_todo(1, 5, 10 .. 15, 25); 
 
That'd be cool :) 
 
Of course, we could make Test.pm parse sth. like the following, too. 
  t/my_test.t 1 5 10..15 25 
 
 
--Ingo 
 
--  
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Life would be so much easier if we could 
generation on a dual AMD   | just look at the source code. 
Athlon!                    | -- Dave Olson