* Paul LeoNerd Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-31 01:05]:
> Whereas, if I want to use the module, I have to first note that
> it isn't standard install, so I should start the test with
> something like:
>
> eval { require Test::Exception; import Test::Exception; };
> my $can_test_exception = $@ ? 0 : 1;
>
> Then each test that might use it should be:
>
> SKIP: {
> skip "No Test::Exception", 1 unless $can_test_exception;
>
> dies_ok( sub { code() },
> 'An exception is raised' );
> }
You’re not using enough magic. If you *really* want to make your
tests run even if Test::Exception isn’t installed, stick the test
in a BEGIN block that conditionally installs a `dies_ok` stub.
Something like
BEGIN {
unless( eval "use Test::Exception; 1" ) {
*dies_ok = sub { SKIP: {
skip "Need Test::Exception for: $_[1]", 1;
} };
}
}
Something like that anyway; untested.
> So, a lot more code, to achieve the same end result... Plus,
> I'm now in the situation where if Test::Exception isn't
> installed, the test won't be run at all.
Well yes. The same can be said of relying on *any* module
whatsoever; you can always “just” reimplement the functionality
in your code and not have to rely on the module.
You don’t need Test::Exception to test exception-throwing, but if
you need to test a lot of that, then Test::Exception will make
your tests a *whole* lot more readable.
(Actually, I’d argue that it should be merged into Test::More
someday… too cheap in terms of code complexity and at the same
time too useful to make people decide whether they want a new
dependency just to get it.)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
