Michael G Schwern wrote at Sun, 07 Jul 2002 04:06:02 +0200:
> You have to be extra careful about preserving the call stack, since the BLOCK is
>called inside
> warns_ok() as a subroutine. Consider:
>
> # line 5 "foo.pl"
> warns_ok { warn "Foo" } /^Foo in foo.pl at line 5$/;
>
> Gotta make sure this comes out ok. Test::Exception does this using Sub::Uplevel.
Yep.
> Rather than restricting it to a regex, you might want to write functions analgous to
>Test::More:
>
> warn_is BLOCK STRING, [TEST_NAME]
> warn_like BLOCK REGEX, [TEST_NAME]
>
> this also eliminates the awkward "no_warns_ok". Instead, you just do:
That's it. I'll adopt your idea.
>
> warn_is { foo() } '', 'no warnings from foo';
warn_is { foo() } undef, 'no warnings from foo';
has the same idea, but reads better to me.
As I wanted to write
warns_ok as a shortcut of the sentence
"It warns, ok ?",
I think to a more readable version than warn_is: "warning_is".
(The 3 extra letters won't kill as,
but from my point of view it reads better, doesn't it ?)
I also have to think that more than one warning in a subroutine is possible.
So I think to method names like
warning_is BLOCK STRING, [TEST_NAME]
warnings_are BLOCK \(STRING1, STRING2, ...), [TEST_NAME]
warning_like BLOCK REGEX, [TEST_NAME]
warnings_like BLOCK \(REGEX1, REGEX2, ...), [TEST_NAME]
Thanks a lot for the suggestions,
Janek
