in reply to Re^9: swat on CPAN
in thread swat on CPAN

Yes of course. :) 
$  swat examples/google/ google.ru
/home/vagrant/.swat/reports/google.ru/00.t ..
# start swat for google.ru//
# try num 2
ok 1 - successfull response from GET google.ru/
# data file: /home/vagrant/.swat/reports/google.ru///content.GET.txt
ok 2 - GET / returns 200 OK
ok 3 - GET / returns Google
1..3
ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=3, 12 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr  0.00 sys +  0.02 cusr  0.00 csys =  0.02 CPU)
Result: PASS
And the are more on https://github.com/melezhik/swat/tree/master/examples

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: swat on CPAN
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:07 UTC
    OK, for some reason you were making me think I had to convert JUnit to TAP. Your docs are very confusing. Please consider having someone who speaks English rewrite them for you. However, I still see zero reason to use this module. Seriously, it is quite pointless. If you do not understand this then you have not been testing for very long. Most people who are inexperienced in testing reinvent wheels that are already invented. There are a plethora of Testing modules out there on the CPAN. I for one do not appreciate you adding more noise to the signal.
[reply]
      It is up to you of course to use this tool or not , some people found my module useful. Have you really read my doc? It has never been said about junit there!

      It is only written that swat produces TAP with prove, that is all, anyone who knows what TAP and prove is might understand that this format is quite flexible. I think this is documented in quite clear and understandable way ( even though I am not a native speaker ) You of course may criticize but usually criticism might be helpful if one provide some other arguments, but the only one I can hear from you is "I still see zero reason to use this".
[reply]
        I profusely apologizing for seeing TAP and reading JUnit. That was my mistake. However, you still don't understand. I call prove. Not you. Big difference.

        So let me be loud and clear here: the fact that your code is a wrapper around prove shows that it is unnecessary. There is no way in hell I would ever put this into one of my clients' production bases.

[reply]

In Section Perl News