--- On Mon, 5/4/10, Gabor Szabo <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Gabor Szabo <[email protected]>
> Maybe I need something like this:
>
> $mech->content_like(qr{regex}) or do {
> my $filename = 'some_filename';
> if (open my $fh, '>', $filename) {
> print $fh $mech->content;
> diag "File: $filename";
> }
> };
>
> and then parse the TAP output for 'File:' *after* a test
> failure.
>
> Is there a better way to do this?
The problem, I think, is that everyone wants subtly different things from tests
outside of ok/not ok. The question I'm wondering is what you mean by "this" in
"is there a better way to do this?".
Are you wanting a better way of presenting the filename to test
authors/runners? Are you wanting a better way to store the file contents?
If it's the former, we need structured diagnostics in TAP to be formalised and
implemented. If it's the latter, I would recommend writing your own "output to
file" function and then instead of using "Test::More" and your own test
utilities, bundle all of them with Test::Kit so you can just do this:
use My::Custom::Test::More tests => $test_count;
The advantage here is that you have your own custom test behaviours nicely
controlled by one module and if you need to change them, you can do so in one
spot.
Or maybe you meant something else by "this" entirely :)
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
