- Original Message
> From: Erik Osheim
> To: perl-qa@perl.org
> Sent: Mon, 9 November, 2009 17:15:52
> Subject: Re: Discourage use_ok?
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:32:18PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> > Why not test that the script *works*, not just that it compiles?
Agreed, but it
# from Ovid
# on Monday 09 November 2009 02:11:
>but can be viewed as tests themselves! If either "use My::Module" or
> "require My::Module" fails, ...
Yeah, that's how I always do it.
>The *only* use I've ever had for use_ok() has been in a t/00-load.t
> test which attempts to load all modules
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:32:18PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> Why not test that the script *works*, not just that it compiles?
That's a good idea. Maybe something like run_ok()?
-- Erik
On 11/09/2009 05:24 AM, Ovid wrote:
Thinking about this more, what about a compile_ok()? It merely asserts that the code
compiles (in an anonymous namespace, perhaps?), but doesn't make any guarantees about you
being able to even use the code -- just that it compiles. It wouldn't need to be
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:41:21AM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:24:11AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> > Thinking about this more, what about a compile_ok()?
> compile_ok() would certainly be interesting with scripts shipped with
> a module, that usually have very little
--- On Mon, 9/11/09, David Golden wrote:
> From: David Golden
> I don't see any problem with require_ok. I've found
> it useful as a
> cheap sanity check and don't see the action at a distance
> problems you
> imply.
use Test::More tests => $gazillion;
require_ok $some_module;
run_gazil
(n Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Ovid wrote:
> For the life of me, I can't really see any utility to use_ok() or
> require_ok(). Not only are both fragile and a source of strange "action at a
> distance" bugs, but the constructs they replace not only work correctly, but
I don't see any problem
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:11:23AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> What do people think? Should we start discouraging the use of these tests?
I've never found them useful and, as you note, they can cause pain. I
remember narrowing down one Devel::Cover bug report to the code being covered
not putting use_
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:11:23AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> For the life of me, I can't really see any utility to use_ok() or
> require_ok(). Not only are both fragile and a source of strange
> "action at a distance" bugs, but the constructs they replace not only
> work correctly, but can be viewed as
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:24:11AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
>> --- On Mon, 9/11/09, Ovid wrote:
>>
>> > From: Ovid
>>
>> > The *only* use I've ever had for use_ok() has been in a
>> > t/00-load.t test which attempts to load all modules a
--- On Mon, 9/11/09, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> compile_ok() would certainly be interesting with scripts
> shipped with
> a module, that usually have very little meat that needs
> testing (since
> most of the work is done in the modules), but that one
> would at least
> check that they compi
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:24:11AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> --- On Mon, 9/11/09, Ovid wrote:
>
> > From: Ovid
>
> > The *only* use I've ever had for use_ok() has been in a
> > t/00-load.t test which attempts to load all modules and does
> > a BAIL_OUT if it fails. I'm sure there are other use
> >
--- On Mon, 9/11/09, Ovid wrote:
> From: Ovid
> The *only* use I've ever had for use_ok() has been in a
> t/00-load.t test which attempts to load all modules and does
> a BAIL_OUT if it fails. I'm sure there are other use
> cases, but if that's the only one, it seems a very, very
> slim justif
I've been toying with this thought for a while: discourage (not quite
deprecate) use_ok() and require_ok(). I've written up some of the problems
with the former (http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/39859) and the latter still
has the "or die" problem.
For the life of me, I can't really see any u
14 matches
Mail list logo
