httpd-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>
Subject Re: extending t_cmp to handle !t_cmp?
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:00:47 GMT

> Am I correct to say that Test::More is in the core for all but 5.6.1 the
> required minimum by mp2?

yes, but see below - we would have further version restrictions if we chose
to make T::M the engine for the entire mp2 test suite.

> so if we make a dependency on Test::More only
> the 5.6.1 users will have to figure out how to get this module before
> they can start building modperl? 

they shouldn't need the dependency to build mod_perl, only to test it :)

> If we agree to go with the switch to
> T::M, do we have sufficient functionality with T::M shipped with 5.8.0
> for example? i.e. is 5.6.1 the only perl version that we need to require
> users to do an extra operation or do we require a specific T::M version,
> in which case many other distros are affected?

to use Test::More for server side tests (a la t/response/foo.pm) we need at
least version 0.49, which was not even in 5.8.5.  client tests can use any
version of T::M as far as I know.

so really, if you want unlike() (or whatever) you would need to do that on a
per-test basis.  otherwise you would essentially be preventing a large
portion of the userbase from running the test suite as a whole.  I'm not
entirely convinced this is unacceptable, but I'm sure you are, so I'll give
in here :)

anyway, in the end I guess I wouldn't suggest moving to T::M entirely just
yet.  but if you want to use it occasionally within certain tests I think
that's fine.

> I understand that Test::More's behavior is preferrably at run time,

yeah, that's the issue for me - t_cmp() prints out too much cruft when
everything is just fine.

> since it prints out the data only when there are problems. But how do
> you develop a new test if you have no way to force Test::More to print
> the compared values? 

I just trust is() - if you develop tests first then it always fails until
you get things right :)

> That's the only reason why I prefer t_cmp() to is().

I can see that.

--Geoff

Mime
View raw message