> Does that mean the test scripts are full of "copy/paste coding"? > So if there is a bug in the test up routine, it would be propagated > everywhere.
That is indeed potentially the case. OTOH, once the code works, then changes to it are intentionally painful. > It seems reasonable to break with the ideal of "self > contained tests" a bit and put shared test setup/tearcode code into > a re-usable testing module. (which itself might have a single set of > tests run against it). And in many cases we do that as well. The problem with that is knowing where the test counts are incremented. We also have a module TW::Mechanize (TW is our app) that subclasses WWW::Mechanize and includes TW-specifc object methods. Now, instead of: $mech->get( $url ); html_ok( $mech->content, "HTML is OK" ); we do $mech->get( $url ); $mech->html_ok( "HTML is OK" ); which means that if we want to do other HTML checking, it's encapsulated in the html_ok() method. xoa -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
