Hi everybody.
I'm new in this list, don't know wheter this is a FAQ ( I've tried but bot
found any FAQ ), so if it's please just point me towards it.
I've been looking at the documentation for the test modules (Test::More,
Test::Simple, Test::Builder ), and I've found nothing regarding the re
On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 06:58, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote:
> I've been looking at the documentation for the test modules (Test::More,
> Test::Simple, Test::Builder ), and I've found nothing regarding the return
> value of the ok(), is(), etc... functions/methods. Browsing through the
> sourc
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:16:51AM -0700, chromatic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 06:58, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote:
> It's a reliable feature. If it's not documented, it should be.
It should also be stated so that folks who use Test::Builder know to
make their functions ret
Many times in test suites I don't want to mock up an entire class or package.
Instead, there are
only one or two target subroutines that I want to change. I get awfully tired of
doing the
following, though:
{
no warnings 'redefine';
my $message;
local *Foo::bar = sub { $message =
On 25 May 2004, at 18:31, Ovid wrote:
[snip]
So I wrote a little module, Sub::Override, to do that for me. I can
replace subs, explicitly
restore them to their original value or just let the object fall out
of scope and have the subs
automatically restored. However, this seems like such an obvi
1st of all, thanks everyone for the prompt response regarding my previous question
about return values.
Now a style question. I'm doing a database oriented module, and I have rouhly the
following tests:
1.- Test wether module can load ( just a require inside an eval ).
2.- Test a bunch of funct
* "Francisco Olarte Sanz." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-25T13:58:21]
> ? Which aproach is better, have a single independent huge test file or
> several interdependent smaller ones ( w/ notes in the readme stating
> test dependence ) ?
The better approach is the one that makes it most likely for yo
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:58:21PM +0200, Francisco Olarte Sanz. wrote:
> 1st of all, thanks everyone for the prompt response regarding my
> previous question about return values.
>
> Now a style question. I'm doing a database oriented module, and I have
> rouhly the following tests:
>
> 1.- Tes
--- Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hook::Lexwrap?
>
> It's what I normally use for this sort of thing, and you can
> short-circuit the original method in a pre- wrapper.
Ah, never knew about the short-circuiting. Thanks!
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is Evilhttp://users.e
Francisco,
Personally I like to have tests that depend upon one another in a
single file. However, that is not always possible or easy to do. In
your case though, I would suggest you use mock objects for your
database instead of a real database. This would allow your tests to be
run independent
10 matches
Mail list logo
