On 29 October 2011 18:20, Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
>>> which have their own separate test state (as currently implemented)
>>
>> This may be me being dim - but I'm not really groking the distinction you're
>> making. Could you give an example of the kind of difference that you're
> proposing?
>
> It's *mostly* internal, but here's an example to explain the difference.
>
> Here's how subtests currently work:
>
> use Test::More;
>
> pass("First test");
>
> subtest 'An example subtest' => sub {
> plan tests => 2;
>
> pass("This is a subtest");
> pass("So is this");
> };
>
> pass("Third test");
>
> done_testing();
> __END__
> This would produce.
>
> ok 1 - First test
> 1..2
> ok 1 - This is a subtest
> ok 2 - So is this
> ok 2 - An example subtest
> ok 3 - Third test
> 1..3
>
> As far as the state of the test is concerned, there's not a lot of difference
> between
>
> subtest 'An example subtest' => sub {
> plan tests => 2;
>
> pass("This is a subtest");
> pass("So is this");
> };
>
> and
>
> pass("An example subtest");
>
> The subtest is one test. Its internals have no more effect on the overall
> test than any single test, whether it runs one or one hundred.
>
> What I'm asking would it make much difference to how subtests are used if it
> was like this:
>
> use Test::More;
>
> pass("First test");
>
> subtest 'An example subtest' => sub {
> plan tests => 2;
>
> pass("This is a subtest");
> pass("So is this");
> };
>
> pass("Last test");
>
> done_testing();
> __END__
> This would produce.
>
> ok 1 - First test
> # An example of a subtest
> ok 2 - This is a subtest
> ok 3 - So is this
> ok 4 - Last test
> 1..4
>
> Now the subtest is just a block with its own name and plan. The plan is
> internally enforced by Test::Builder, TB makes sure that two tests are run
> inside the block. Otherwise tests run inside a subtest are no different from
> any other.
>
> Another example is:
>
> subtest 'An example subtest' => sub {
> plan tests => 2;
> plan skip_all => "Because" if $something;
>
> pass("This is a subtest");
> pass("So is this");
> };
>
> would become exactly equivalent to:
>
> SKIP: {
> skip "Because", 2 if $something;
>
> pass("This is a subtest");
> pass("So is this");
> }
>
> It becomes just a better way of writing a skip block.
>
> David already pointed out that if you're the sort of person who eyeballs TAP
> (I do), the indentation is a nice visual distinction. Anything else?
It seems like it's impossible then to declare a global plan in advance
if you use subtests unless you go counting all the sub tests which is
no fun,
F
>
> --
> Alligator sandwich, and make it snappy!
>
