develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2008

Re: [RFC] Dual-lifing test.pl

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Jerry D. Hedden
Date:
July 1, 2008 06:31
Subject:
Re: [RFC] Dual-lifing test.pl
Message ID:
1ff86f510807010631k34df08e0w447c38b87d6b6e25@mail.gmail.com
Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
> From what I can tell, there are well over a dozen
> dual-lived modules that incorporate test.pl into their
> distributions.  Rather than continuing this trend, I would
> like to propose turning it into a module and dual-lifing
> it to CPAN.

Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Why are they using it, rather than something built from
> Test::Builder?  What does it offer that Test::Builder
> derived modules don't?

Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
> In my case of dual-lifing threads, threads::shared,
> Thread::Queue and Thread::Semaphore, it was because the
> tests were already written to use test.pl.  Thus, adding
> it to the distribution was easier than rewriting all the
> tests.

Nicholas Clark wrote:
> But, logically, those tests in the modules in core can be
> re-written to not use it [if, see below]

Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
> I would imagine that is also the case for the other
> dual-lived modules that use test.pl, but their maintainers
> could have other reasons.  Anybody?
>
> Additionally, test.pl has certain functionality (e.g.,
> fresh_perl() and watchdog()) not found in the Test::*
> modules.

Nicholas Clark wrote:
> hence I think that a better solution would be to add just
> that code to a Test::Builder based module, either a new
> one, or an existing one if its maintainer is keen.
>
> The core's test.pl is meant to be a subset of the
> Test::More functionality for core regression tests in t/*
> (distinct from tests in lib/* for modules shipped with
> core). To me it feels like scope creep if it also ends up
> dual-lived. It also means that we would have *two*
> core-supported test frameworks, which can't be used in the
> same test.

If the functionality in test.pl (that does not currently
exist in other module) could be duplicated elsewhere using a
Test::Builder-based module, would there be a reason then to
maintain test.pl?  Would it be better then to eliminate
test.pl entirely?

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