On Tuesday 09 September 2003 18:40, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > It's incredibly useful for testing the innards of objects, I think that's
what
> > people use it for.
>
> I still don't think it should be. An object is not a hashref or a
> listref. It might happen to be implemented by blessing a hashre
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:23, Tels wrote:
> I agree. For instance, ok() just looks at the outside, and if it compares
ok,
> the objects are considered equal. After all, this is the entire point behind
> overloading and tie, to "fake" something. For instance, this "feature" of
> ok() makes
Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> > Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph
> > match to simply use an existing serializer (FreezeThaw,
> > Data::Dumper)?
>
> If you want a yes/no answer then it probab
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:09:16PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> But it doesn't fail, it never has failed and it was never intended to fail.
> is_deeply is specifically for looking at and descending into the structure of
> it's arguments, otherwise what's the point? Where's the "deep"ness?
I don't
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Tels wrote:
From my point of view is_deeply() is an extended ok(), which also walks
arrays, hashes and other (possible nested) structures, and then
compares
_each_ element.
This is how I've always seen it, assuming Tels meant is() instead of
ok() above
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:27, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Isn't the easiest way to get a recursive-and-exact object graph match to
> simply use an existing serializer (FreezeThaw, Data::Dumper). This
> leverages the circular reference handling and introspection smarts built
> into those librari
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > my $str1 = MyString->new("foo", "bar");
> > my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("foo", "baz");
>
> Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
> I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 19:08, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Most of the time people shouldn't care. If the thing is sufficiently
> masquerading as a type 5 widget you shouldn't care - that's purel
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > my $str1 = MyString->new("foo", "bar");
> > my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("foo", "baz");
>
> Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
> I must admit that even with the current is_deeply it will
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> > >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> > >2) is $str1, $str2;
> > >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> > >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> > All should pass as far as I am concerned.
I agree. The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 16:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> > >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> > >2) is $str1, $str2;
> > >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> > >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> >
> > All shou
My opinion: those is_deeply() tests should probably not pass. While on the surface
it may appear
that they should, I would argue that this is a case where the programmer writing the
tests needs
to know enough about the system he or she is building to create tests that accurately
reflect how
th
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 10:52 Europe/London, Tony Bowden wrote:
[snip]
1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
2) is $str1, $str2;
3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
All should pass as far as I am concerned.
The Test::More deeply behaviour matches my intuitions, and I would have
tests th
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:25:22PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >1) ok $str1 eq $str2;
> >2) is $str1, $str2;
> >3) is_deeply [$str1], [$str2];
> >4) is_deeply $str1, $str2;
> All should pass as far as I am concerned.
OK - what if it was slightly more complex:
package MyString;
use overload
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:07:00PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
> answer on these tests.
But do you agree that they should all pass?
If so I've completely misunderstood your earlier arguments. They certainly
aren't "deepl
The question needs changing. Both versions of is_deeply will give the same
answer on these tests. I was going to say:
What you need is
package MyOtherString;
use overload
'""' => sub { shift->[0] },
fallback => 1;
sub new {
my ($class, $val) = @_;
bless [ $val ], $class;
}
But actuall
There's been a protracted discussion on the code-review mailing list
about the behaviour of is_deeply in Test::More, which really belongs
here or p5p.
For the most part it was sparked by a disagreement about what should
happen when comparing overloaded objects (but also then impacts on tied
objec
17 matches
Mail list logo
