Hi Michael,
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 03:35]:
> use Test::More;
> pass();
> plan tests => 2;
> pass();
>
> Why shouldn't this work? Currently you get a "You tried to run
> a test without a plan" error, but what is it really protecting
> the test author from?
>
> Historically, there was a clear technical reason. It used to be
> that the plan had to come first in the TAP output, so a plan
> had to come before any tests were run. Simple.
>
> But that technical restriction no longer holds true. The plan
> can come at the end, primarily used for "no_plan". If a test is
> run before the plan is declared, simply delay the plan output
> until the end.
Yes, so this should be allowed:
pass();
plan 'no_plan';
pass();
Whereas this should not:
pass();
plan tests => 2;
pass();
So the error would be deferred from the first assertion run to
the `plan` invocation.
Consider also:
pass();
plan skip_all => 'Surprise!';
pass();
> It also makes it technically possible to allow the test to
> change it's plan mid-stream
Without some hypothetical future version of TAP this is only
possible if you have run tests before declaring a plan at all,
because otherwise the plan will already have been output as the
first line of the TAP stream.
> Since the technical restriction is gone, and I see no
> particular benefit to it being there, and it eliminates some
> tricky plan counting situations, I don't see why it shouldn't
> be removed.
Because declaring a plan after running tests is effectively a
no_plan and the programmer should be aware that that’s what they
did. It’s fine if that’s their conscious choice; just make sure
it was.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
