David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:00:38AM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
>> You might want to report error if both plan(2) and add_plan(2) was
>> called in the same file.
>
> Or you might not.
>
> plan(2);
> # generic tests
> ok(...);
> ok(...);
> if($ENV{RUN_REALLY_SLOW_TESTS}) {
> add_plan(2);
> ok(...);
> ok(...);
> }
> done_testing();
Test::NoWarnings, which has to add a test without you knowing, would find that
advantageous.
I also allowed this:
use Test::More 'no_plan';
pass();
pass();
done_testing(2);
I'm not entirely sure why you'd do it, maybe if a human writes "no_plan" but a
module issues the done_testing(), but I can't think of a strong reason to make
it fail.
Separating adding to the plan from declaring a plan is also a good idea.
Rather than make a new function, plan() already takes key/values so
plan(add => $num_tests) would seem to be the way to do it.
Also, Test::More must know that your plan is additive so it knows to issue the
TAP plan at the end. So this won't work:
use Test::More tests => 1; # at this point, "1..1" is printed
pass;
plan add => 1; # what now?
pass;
So you'd do this:
use Test::More;
plan add => 1;
pass;
plan add => 1;
pass;
Though we don't have incremental TAP plans, Test::Builder can check that
you've run all the tests you said you'd run before you add more. Thus...
use Test::More;
plan add => 2;
pass;
plan add => 1;
pass; # failure
pass;
Thoughts?
--
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you
with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here.
-- Jayne Cobb, "Firefly"
