On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:44:50AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > plan tests => 14, if => have( "Foo" ) && moon_phase eq "waning";
>
> The downside here, as Geoff alluded to, is that we don't really want the
> short circuiting behaviour of &&, since evaluating the operands may give
> useful information as to why the tests are being skipped.
Actually we do. Consider the following.
plan tests => 14, if => os("Win32") && check_something_win32_specific;
Now there is something rather important missing from this discussion.
The skip reason. Everything proposed so far is only taking into account
the conditional. But the real thing we want to condense is this.
if( some_condition ) {
plan tests => 14;
}
else {
plan skip_all => "the reason we're skipping this test";
}
The "need" functions must express two things.
1) Whether or not the test should be skipped.
2) Why the test is being skipped.
A simple solution is for need functions to return 0 if the need is met,
and the reason for skipping if the need is not met. Because this is
backwards logic we should rename the functionality to better match the
logic.
For example.
sub need_module {
my $module = shift;
eval qq{use $module};
return $@ ? "Can't load $module" : 0;
}
I'm not totally pleased with having "backwards" logic but it does seem
the simplest way to do it.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
MERV GRIFFIN!
