On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:40:39AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: > - In hindsight, having a 1 test default was probably a hangover from > JUnit thinking... I never really considered any alternatives.
I have to say I like the way this currently is... most of my test methods only have one test ... so I'll have to go change lots of things. And type those extra 3 chars all the time :) That doesn't really worry me _that_ much though... if there's going to be a serious iinterface change like this I'd rather it was now than later! I'm more concerned about making no_plan the default. Typing 'noplan' explicitly is probably a good thing IMO - it's jarring enough to make you think twice about it... It works in Test::Inline because there it's much more difficult to come up with a good interface to say how many tests you should have. But Test::Class's interface to this, where you say for each test method how many tests it has, is a wonderful interface. Making the specification of the number of tests basically optional when there's such a natural way to specify it seems like it costs us more than it buys. > Seems more "perlish"... I can sort of see this, but I'm not sure it's much of an issue ... > The 'no_plan' in Test::Class isn't the same concept as the > 'no_plan' in Test::Builder... some people have found the identical > naming confusing. I don't really get this one, but maybe it's just a matter of giving another alias for 'no_plan' here? > "undef" seems a nice shorthand for "undefined number of tests" It's not really an 'undefined' number though - it's an unknown number. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's an important one. > No more messy "eq 'no_plan'" >From an external POV this doesn't really impact at all... > Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of > testing Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I don't really understand why people might prefer it. Especially here where there's such a natural way to specify them, and you're only counting them per method, rather than over the entire test. > Typing "(1)" isn't too much effort and makes the # tests > explicit. It's not too much effort but it is slightly more. I think it comes down to what each approach seems best suited for. The current approach is least work if you have lots of methods that only issue one test - you just define each method as : Test and you're done. The proposed new syntax makes it easiest for people who have many tests per method, and either have a variable number or just don't want to specify how many there are. My opinion is that the first is a 'better' approach, and would (All other things being equal) be the better 'default' approach. But I'm not hugely worried either way... Just my rambling thoughts. Tony Tony
