I agree, t::lib::Foo is really the obious solution to my first question. For the other part, I like that evil magic thing, I'll probably publish a separate module that requires and imports all pm files it finds under t/lib or someother assigned dir. It'll still be only one code line in my .t , only should I put more pm files there it will do them all.
Thanks. T. On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:36 AM, D Perrett <perret...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > use t::lib::MyPackage; > > Nice tip! > > Searching on "use t::lib" led me to PPI which has both lib/PPI.pm and > t/lib/PPI.pm - I suspect that they're not interchangeable and that > trying to add t/lib to @INC would break its tests. > > Daniel > > On 30 January 2014 22:25, Leon Timmermans <faw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Torbjørn Lindahl > > <torbjorn.lind...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> It seems t/lib is a common place to put modules used to support testing, > >> how about having Test::More push that path to @INC if -d 't/lib' ? It > would > >> save me one , possibly two annoying lines of code in every .t file I > write. > >> With an import tag, ':automiport' or something, it could perhaps > require all > >> .pm files in that dir too/instead? > > > > > > I don't like magical behavior. «use lib 't/lib';» is far more > > self-documenting, and automatically requiring all .pm files is plain > evil. > > > >> > >> personally I end up with use lib 't/lib' in 9 of 10 projects. > > > > > > For me it's less than 1 in 10. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm closer to > the > > average than you TBH, YMMV. > > > > Leon > -- mvh Torbjørn Lindahl
