Hi Michael On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 09:12 -0500, Michael Peters wrote: > Ron Savage wrote: > > > Is Test::WWW::Mechanize the most appropriate harness for testing CGI > > (but not CGI::Application) code? > > I love T::W::M (used with Test::HTML::Content). But why limit yourself to > just normal CGI and not > CGI::Application code? IMO it's not only important to test the C::A code, but > also the environment > you're running it in. If you run your tests just via the module but your > application runs under > Apache, then there will be bugs that your tests don't catch.
Thanx. And... Why limit myself!? Well, I did not say but I'm investigating tools to test my re-write of CGI::Uploader, which is a stand-alone module, and has nothing to do with CGI::Application, although of course it could be used in a CGI::App-based app. Unfinished docs here: http://savage.net.au/Up.html As for Test::HTML::Content, damn! Now I have to learn yet /another/ module's idiosyncracies :-)). -- Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://savage.net.au/index.html ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
