On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 12:14:59AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: > 0) Do other people find this vaguely sane? Even <gasp> possibly useful?
Yes! xUnit with a Perl spin is something I've wanted for a long time. > 1) Is Test::Class the right name? If you ignore the "it doesn't say it's xUnit" problem, it's a good name. Since you mention xUnit in the NAME part of the docs, it should be found. > 2) You can have multiple setup/teardown methods. This fell out of the > implementation, rather than being a deliberate design decision, but it > has proved surprisingly useful (e.g. have one teardown method to clean > up resources, another to check that class invarients still hold). Is > there some reason why this is evil? As long as the order is deterministic (which it is) it sounds ok. > 3) The fact that num_method_tests() uses the class it was called from, > rather that the one it was applied to, seems kind of gnarly. However, > it did seem the neatest solution to the inheritance problem mentioned > in the documentation. How offensive do people find this, and is there > a better solution? I don't quite follow the problem. Could you clarify? -- This sig file temporarily out of order.
