On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:24:11AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> --- On Mon, 9/11/09, Ovid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From: Ovid <[email protected]>
>
> > The *only* use I've ever had for use_ok() has been in a
> > t/00-load.t test which attempts to load all modules and does
> > a BAIL_OUT if it fails. I'm sure there are other use
> > cases, but if that's the only one, it seems a very, very
> > slim justification for a fragile code.
>
> Thinking about this more, what about a compile_ok()? It merely
> asserts that the code compiles (in an anonymous namespace, perhaps?),
> but doesn't make any guarantees about you being able to even use the
> code -- just that it compiles. It wouldn't need to be done at BEGIN
> time, nor would it necessarily require a "or die" after it, since its
> availability is not guaranteed (though that would be problematic as
> cleaning a namespace is also fragile).
>
> Just tossing out ideas here.
>
compile_ok() would certainly be interesting with scripts shipped with
a module, that usually have very little meat that needs testing (since
most of the work is done in the modules), but that one would at least
check that they compile.
--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
Everyone's life seems easier from the outside.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #45 (Epic))
