develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from December 2002

Re: Graphically depicting coverage vs. test results

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Adrian Howard
Date:
December 17, 2002 03:36
Subject:
Re: Graphically depicting coverage vs. test results
Message ID:
AA6D5698-11B3-11D7-81CF-0030654E40D0@quietstars.com
Ah. Confusion of vocab. You're talking about the order of the test 
scripts rather than the order of tests run by those scripts. Yes?

I think Tony was talking about the order of tests.

While key test scripts tend to be run earlier in some setups, I'm not 
sure that's it going to be a useful distinction all of the time. There 
are certainly lots of test setups where it's not true for me.

Adrian

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 11:12  pm, Paul Johnson wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 04:49:46PM +0000, Tony Bowden wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:16:53AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> I also had thoughts along the lines of all tests not being equal.
>>> Generally the earlier a test is run, the more important it is.
>>
>> This isn't necessarily true.
>>
>> Test::Class, for example, runs tests in alphabetical order ...
>
> Well, yes, I think this is true for most (all?) of Perl's core and CPAN
> modules, but a developer is free to impose an order by playing with the
> names of the tests, similar to the way things work with rc scripts.
>
> Maybe I should have said that tests for basic functionality should
> probably be run before tests for more advanced functionality, as 
> happens
> in the perl core.
>
> Fortunately, "basic" comes fairly early in the alphabet :-)
>
> -- 
> Paul Johnson - paul@pjcj.net
> http://www.pjcj.net
>


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