Andy Lester wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>>> use Test::More tests => 14;
>>> ok( 1 );
>>> done_testing();
>>
>> You would try that. :P
>
>
> It's not that I tried it, it's that I didn't know what would happen if I
> did both together, because it wasn't clear
On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
use Test::More tests => 14;
ok( 1 );
done_testing();
You would try that. :P
It's not that I tried it, it's that I didn't know what would happen if
I did both together, because it wasn't clear to me up front if
done_testing() replaced
Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm so glad for done_testing(). I don't like no_plan, but
> done_testing() makes it better.
>
> I was surprised/confused to see this behavior:
>
> $ cat foo.t
> use Test::More tests => 14;
> ok( 1 );
> done_testing();
You would try that. :P
I guess its a belt and suspender
I'm so glad for done_testing(). I don't like no_plan, but
done_testing() makes it better.
I was surprised/confused to see this behavior:
$ cat foo.t
use Test::More tests => 14;
ok( 1 );
done_testing();
$ prove -v foo.t
[13:55:39] foo.t ..
1..14
ok 1
not ok 2 - planned to run 14 but done_tes
