On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:46:29PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 05:59:22PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:48:29PM +0100, Tels wrote: > > > Te"One day Math::Big* will have more tests than Perl;)"ls > > > > One day Perl will have more tests than Bit::Vector. 67255 at last count. > > Ilya chose not to attempt that for 5.6, by make op/numconvert.t only report > 1 ok (or not) for a cluster of 15 numbers passed through the same conversions. > We could always change op/numconvert.t to report 15 times as many tests > (about another 20,000 I think) > > But that's cheating, isn't it?
My Gedcom module has 7671 tests. Most of these are from checking a 1476 line file five times. I could easily make that file bigger ... Although really I'd prefer to make it smaller. It used to take about 15 mins to run on my old Dec. Nowadays that's not such a priority :-) > More on topic - I like Test::More. > I like test.pl in the core. > But I fear that we aren't bootstrapping our tests carefully enough. > In that I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be using Test::More until we're > sure we've tested all the ops, and we shouldn't be using test.pl until > we've tested all the ops it uses (and be careful to limit the ops > and the complexity of ops it uses) > > TEST starts: > > # This is written in a peculiar style, since we're trying to avoid > # most of the constructs we'll be testing for. > > Maybe it should print that out on each run, to remind everyone :-) I agree. That is, I share your fears. I also wonder about TEST. Last time I did a patch for it I was surprised at just what constructs it did include. Maybe all the constructs it uses are tested earlier, but after all the fingers that have been in the pie, it's probably time for someone to take a good look at what gets tested where to make sure that the various test programs do only use previously tested constructs as far as possible. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
