Ovid,
I second that complaint against JUnit. I recently have been doing some Java work and found it somewhat frustrating that when my test failed I had to read line numbers and hunt around, etc etc etc. I have gotten so used to my test comment not only pointing me right to the failed test, but telling me what happened even before I looked at the code itself.
That said, I also think I am going to start looking at Test::Class for my perl testing as I find I am starting to like the whole xUnit approach.
Steve
On Dec 2, 2004, at 12:14 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I have a modest proposal. Stop calling the 2nd parm to ok() the "name". It's really a comment.
ok( $is_happy, "Make sure the doodad is wingoed" );
Hmm ... I like this idea, though I confess that I don't like that the comment is optional. While I've finally decided that I prefer an xUnit framework (e.g., Test::Class) to Test::More, one of the strongest benefits to Test::More is the comment on most tests.
As an example of where Test::More is beneficial: in jUnit you might have a method testing whether you can clone a customer and in that test you notice that the code does not copy the customer's social security number. This might be a bug and it might be a feature. Who knows? Little details like that tend to get lost in the xUnit world. With Test::More (and Test::Class, since it's a wrapper around Test::More), you're more likely to have a detailed comment explaining those nit-picky details. Thus, while I realize that few would agree with making comments mandatory -- use strict 'tests'? :) -- I would suggest that we ignore them at our peril. I've done enough xUnit tests to miss that feature of Test::More.
Cheers, Ovid
=====
Silence is Evil http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/decency.html
Ovid http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=17000
Web Programming with Perl http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
