On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> But (I thought) the idea was that every test needs the same setup. If
> they're all in one method, they won't get that.
How's that?
> Also, if you add lots of tests in a single method, (again as I understand)
> they will stop a
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:10:09PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
> > - You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
>
> Those that need different
--- Tony Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The big gain for me with Test::Class is inheritable tests. Subclasses
> can ensure they still pass all their parent's tests, as well as all of
> their own, without me having to copy all the tests, or set up a really
> clumsy testing environment. And of c
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:59:30PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
> - You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
Those that need different things aren't testing the same thing and
should move to a different cla
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:59, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Every time I hear about xUnit, I figure there must be something other
> than "setup and teardown" in its favor. If that's all there is, I'm not
> sold.
It's the best option for languages that enforce a nominally pure OO
style.
(During the tec
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:08:44PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Where xUnit wins for me are in the normal places where OO is useful
> (abstraction, reuse, revealing intention, etc.).
Since you've thought about this, and obviously don't believe "it's OO so
it's better", I'd be interested in seein
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:09:40AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
> isolation than Test::More does
I see this more as a limitation than a feature. It seems to mean that
- You need to use the same setup/teardown for all your tests.
On 24 Jun 2004, at 07:09, Piers Cawley wrote:
[snip]
The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what
Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be
used *in* a test).
To be fair to Test::Mor
> The other concern I've had with our style of xUnit testing is that we're testing
> behavior, but not
> the actual data. With Test::More, we tested against a copy of the live database
> (when possible --
> but this definitely caused some issues) and we sometimes caught data problems that
> xU
Hi,
I've run into "Can't call method "add_statement" on an undefined value"
running Devel::Cover. Apologies if this was reported before, but the
list archive is not searchable. I am using perl 5.8.4 and Devel::Cover 0.46.
To reproduce the bug, run
/opt/perl/bin/perl -MDevel::Cover -MFooBar -e "F
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
> isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what
> Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be
> used *in* a test).
After working with xUn
11 matches
Mail list logo
