On Tuesday 08 August 2006 00:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Following in the footsteps of the recent discussion on extending no_plan > to cover the case of us making sure the script actually finished > 'normally', it occurred to me that another thing that might be useful is > a means to have Test::Harness(? - I could be wrong) update the plan in > the scripts it just ran.
Why bother? If you're going to assume that the number of tests is correct without looking at it, why do you need a plan anyway? I really don't understand this. People say "Oh, keeping the test count up to date is difficult! I don't want to count all of the tests myself by hand!" I have a vim macro to toggle the counter between 'no_plan' and a number. I run the tests with perl -I or perl -Mblib, eyeball the output, then when I've finished the feature and want to check it in, I update the test count. This has *never* been a burden for me and it has saved me from checking in broken code several times. Do I work very differently from everyone else? -- c
