Ilya Martynov wrote at Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:42:44 +0200:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:52:17 +0200, Janek Schleicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> JS> [..snip..]
>
> JS> Thinking in general,
> JS> there could be also some other features included.
> JS> Let's think we'd like to test the creation of big pictures,
> JS> perhaps 5_000 x 5_000.
> JS> It could take a while to make a test for all pixels,
> JS> but we also would like to test some of them (randomly choosen),
> JS> to avoid systematic error.
>
> Test results should be easily reproducible. I don't think having
> randomly choosen tests is good idea.
srand could be our friend.
> Say you have written CPAN module. One day you get email from user
> with bug report about 'make test' being failing. You ask him to rerun
> test with TEST_VERBOSE=1 to see in details why it failing but surprise
> - it doesn't fail anymore. Have fun finding what's get wrong.
Well, failing a test this way will produce a short description of the parameters
via diag, so it's also seen with 'make test'.
However, it's not important for me that the parameters are really randomly choosen -
allthough I still would prefer to have some before I release a module -
but I'd like to write tests to avoid systematic mistakes,
while it would need too long to test all scenarios.
But perhaps, I should better write a function to extract them,
so I could write something like
all_ok {$img->color(@_) == 0}
params( [ [0 .. 50_000], [0 .. 50_000] ], "1000 + bounds" )
"all pixels I looked for in the big image are black";
and I could guarantee,
that params( ... )
chooses the same params for the user and for me.
Greetings,
Janek
