"Kurt D. Starsinic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 15, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>> Ok, so that's a bit off the topic of "why use isa_ok()" but I just don't
>> see why people seem to object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
>> tests. I can't see how it couldn't help improve the quality of the tests
>> while providing a standardized way to do the things that all the tests do
>> anyway.
>
> I, for one, don't object to the use of Test::More in the core Perl
> tests. I'm just being responsibly skeptical about the promotion of many
> different test harness modules with many different functions. It runs
> the risk of _seeming_ like the People in Charge don't know what testing
> is for, and of not providing effective guidance to those people writing
> their first tests.
>
> I also think that we have a real testing problem, which is that it
> isn't _trivially_ easy to run a huge test suite (like Alzabo's, or Perl's)
> and to find out at the end which tests failed and what their output was.
> 3000 lines and 20 minutes later, a message that 3 out of 10000 tests
> failed is not maximally useful. Greater variety of test functions is not
> (IMNSHO) nearly as important as addressing that.
This is one of the things that the PerlUnit test framework does
reasonably well, but I definitely wouldn't recommend it for the perl
test suite as it does some vaguely hairy stuff with OO and is
definitely designed for testing rather higher level constructs than
perl ops etc.
Note to self. Polish the docs for PerlUnit and make a new release
already.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
