develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2001

[PATCH pod/perlhack.pod t/op/pack.t] Fixing bad testing advice

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Robin Houston
Date:
August 28, 2001 06:12
Subject:
[PATCH pod/perlhack.pod t/op/pack.t] Fixing bad testing advice
Message ID:
20010828141246.A19116@puffinry.freeserve.co.uk
Michael Schwern wrote:
> Ah HA!  I've been wondering why nobody ever thinks to write a simple
> ok() function for their tests!  perlhack has bad testing advice.

Could you explain the advantage of having a "simple ok() function"?

As somebody who has spent many painful hours debugging test failures,
I'm intimately familiar with the _disadvantages_. When you run the
test, you know that "test 113 failed". That's all you know, in general.

It's bad enough having to count the ocurrences of the ok() function to
find out *which* test failed; and it's made considerably worse when,
as is often the case, some of the ok()s are in loops.

When tests are written in the naive style, life is much simpler. A
simple "/ok 113" in vi will usually suffice to locate the offending
test. Even if the failing test is in a loop, it's easy to tell what
range of test numbers are encompassed by a particular loop.

The "simple ok() function" may make test scripts easier to write,
but it makes them a *lot* more difficult to use.

One compromise would be to use a test-generating script, which allows
the tests to be structured simply and _generates_ the actual test
code. One could then grep the generated test script to locate the
failing code.

 .robin.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About