Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-22 Thread attriel
>> I have to agree with Tony. I think it's important to explicitly >> indicate the number of tests that a given method runs, and to be >> explicit about saying when you're not sure how many tests there will >> be. In that regard, I like the current design better, although I would >> have no compla

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-15 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote: > > >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of > >> testing > > > >Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-15 Thread Tony Bowden
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > The reason I went with no_plan in Test::Inline was that unlike a dedicated > test script, a T::I test is cobbled together from a series of seperated > blocks of tests and it's more difficult than usual to count them all and add >

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-14 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:46:38 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > OTOH, my thinking recently is that the explicit plan has become obsolescent. > [1] > > The explicit plan protects against: > > 1. Your test dying. > 2. Your test not printing tests to STDOUT > 3. Exiting early via exit(). > > #1 an

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-14 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > OTOH, my thinking recently is that the explicit plan has become obsolescent. > [1] > [1] This thinking makes me nervous, so I'm open to someone convincing me > otherwise. My take on this is that tests should failsafe. I don't

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-14 Thread Tels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Moin, On 14-Oct-02 Michael G Schwern carved into stone: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > The explicit plan protects against: > > 1. Your test dying. > 2. Your test not printing tests to STDOUT > 3. Exiting early via exit(). 4

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-14 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote: > >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of > >> testing > > > >Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I > >

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-13 Thread David Wheeler
On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote: >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of >> testing > > Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I > don't really understand why people might prefer it. Especially here >

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-13 Thread Piers Cawley
Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > There's been a new version of Test::Class coming 'real soon' for a few > months now :-) [...] > I'm considering two changes. > a) Test methods default to an arbitrary number of tests. > b) Use undef rather than 'no_pl

Re: Test::Class - comments wanted

2002-10-13 Thread Tony Bowden
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:40:39AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: > - In hindsight, having a 1 test default was probably a hangover from > JUnit thinking... I never really considered any alternatives. I have to say I like the way this currently is... most of my test methods only have one test .