David E. Wheeler wrote:
> 1..4? God no. I think this:
>
> # Planning 2 more tests at foo.t line 3.
> ok 1 - First test
> # Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run
> # at foo.t line 6.
> ok 3 - Second test
> ok 4 - Third test
> 1..3
>
> That is, all tests should pass, but the test suite itself should fail,
> just as happens now if you have the wrong number of tests. Not sure how
> you'd show that, though.
Ok, makes sense. Now riddle me this, Batman:
use Test::More;
plan add => 1;
pass("first");
pass("second");
plan add => 2;
pass("third");
done_testing(3);
Is that...
ok 1 - first
ok 2 - second
# Looks like you planned 1 tests, but 2 were run
# at foo.t line 3.
ok 2 - third
# Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run
# at foo.t line 6.
1..3
One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's history can't store
test #2 twice. So history is lost.
--
There will be snacks.
