develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from January 2005

Re: Test::Unit, ::Class, or ::Inline?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
jason
Date:
January 26, 2005 12:49
Subject:
Re: Test::Unit, ::Class, or ::Inline?
Message ID:
20050126144856.fh69kbmyi9s0sk0g@manage.multiply.org
Quoting Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>:

> I would prefer it if people would stop associating Test::More with
> "testing using .t files".  Test::More is a simple collection of testing
> functions.  How you use it is not restricted by the module.  Test::Inline
> and Test::Class both use Test::More for their baseline testing functions.
>
> I've seen too many "which technique should I use, X or Y?" discussions
> lately.  Testing modules and techniques are additive, you don't have to
> choose between one or the other exclusively.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my personal frustration with
Test::More is not that it is hard to use in a module fashion, or overly
dependant on .t files.

My main gripe is that the infrastructure for it is less OO friendly.  The
example with the HTML output was awesome......until i looked at how it was
done.  The inability to get a data structure back for the test results 
is very,
very frustrating.

Don't get me wrong.  I love Test::More.  The variety of assertion functions
makes for extremely readable tests.  What we are lacking that Xunit style
frameworks provide is a nice, simple way to deal with the results of those
assertions.  Printing to STDERR/STDOUT, hijacking those and pretty 
printing the
results is simply not enough in all cases.  It is awesome in some cases.  Just
not all.

sorry for the rant.  I have seen an RT request for at least a data structure
returned for results.  any movement on that?

-jason gessner
     jason@multiply.org


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