On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The reason I went with no_plan in Test::Inline was that unlike a dedicated
> test script, a T::I test is cobbled together from a series of seperated
> blocks of tests and it's more difficult than usual to count them all and add
> them up. Adds another step to writing more tests.
> Test::Class shares that cobbled together nature, but if it has a way to
> specify them on a per-block basis, that will work without much trouble.
It does, and it's very nice. I like it a lot.
Most of my tests are now of the format:
sub test_foo : Test {
is shift->do_something, 'expected value', "We can foo!";
}
or, sometimes:
sub test_bar : Test(2) {
my $baz = shift->baz(10);
isa_ok $baz, "Foo::Bar";
is $baz->value, 100, "baz gives correct value";
}
This is a really neat way to specify the number of tests per block.
> OTOH, my thinking recently is that the explicit plan has become obsolescent.
> [1] This thinking makes me nervous, so I'm open to someone convincing me
> otherwise.
The biggest gain I see from it is preventing the accidental deletion of
tests.
A good revision control system will also catch that. But that's a whole
nother story.
Tony
