Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from February 2007
On 2/1/07, Adrian Howard <adrianh@quietstars.com> wrote: > On 1 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Joshua ben Jore wrote: > [snip] > > There's is nothing special about what T::E is doing to detect errors - > > it just turns out the popular practice of looking at $@ is flawed. > > That's a problem with the pattern and I expect that what it means is > > that if T::E starts detecting errors that were previously being > > ignored that the user really ought to be fixing up their code because > > that's buggy as well. > > I don't like labelling the change in behaviour an error. Sometimes it > might be. Sometimes it might not. I'd like T::E to support both > options. Especially since the errors can be in third party code that > doesn't affect the behaviour of the code under test. Ok, I'll give you that a user may want to ignore errors that occur during scope cleanup but from the point of view of T::E, it seems relatively clear that an error really has occurred. I'd tend to think that T::E's default behavior would be to be as careful as possible and only less so if the user asks for it. I think it'd be great if a user's tests break because T::E changed. That'd mean there's something they were probably overlooking. They're forced to react to it. That's good, isn't it? Just because modules use T::E without error *today* doesn't mean they should pass tomorrow if and when bugs in T::E are discovered. I'd be a happy guy if a paranoid T::E caused consternation and people to post "OMG! My stuff fails now!" to perlmonks or whatever. JoshThread Previous | Thread Next