* Buddy Burden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-29 20:55]:
I just think that having code where every time you change
things in one place, you have to make sure you change something
somewhere else isn't a good thing. In any other programming
scenario, I think most everyone would agree with me.
I
Aristotle,
But when it comes to testing, doing this in terms of tests is
not only okay, it's considered best practice.
No, just intrinsically inevitable, as far as I can tell anyway.
Well, do you agree with this assessment:
Having a plan stated as an exact number of tests to be run is
On Sunday 30 March 2008 14:57:35 Buddy Burden wrote:
And/or, it may make sense to use
deferred plans during development, but switch to numeric plans before
releasing anything to CPAN.
That's what I do. I have a pair of Vim macros which toggle my plans.
-- c
Hi Buddy,
* Buddy Burden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-31 00:05]:
Well, do you agree with this assessment:
Having a plan stated as an exact number of tests to be run is a
solution to 2 problems. The first is that a test harness must
be able to tell when not enough tests have been run. The
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Note that it doesn’t quite protect you from running too few tests
either. You may botch some conditional in your test program and
end up skipping tests silently, in which case you will still
reach the `all_done()` line, and it’ll look as if all was fine.
The typical
