Eric Wilhelm wrote: >> My stock thinking is that because it follows the xUnit pattern that's >> most familiar to most non-Perl programmers. It's the first thing >> they stumble on that looks like what they're used to. So that's what >> they go with. > > Even if they had no prior language experience, if someone tells them > they should be doing "unit testing", or they read about "unit tests", > they're going to get fed PerlUnit by google because we're afraid of the > word "unit"?
I'm afraid of your unit, Eric. Maybe we need to do some Google training. FWIW I added a TAP column to the Perl section on Wikipedia's list of unit testing frameworks. If every testing framework has to sound off on xUnit, why not TAP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#Perl Also a "plays well with others" column would be handy. >> It also contains an integrated test runner, which might help folks >> like that guy who said "As of now, we use Test::More but current >> issue is that we have to run all the test files manually for testing" >> and doesn't realize the Test::More/Test::Harness relationship. > > That comment was the OP by the way. His question was basically "how do > I run my tests?", which maybe says something about our instruction > manual. Test::Tutorial only mentions Test::Harness but doesn't actually say how to use it. Patches welcome. -- 170. Not allowed to "defect" to OPFOR during training missions. -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army http://skippyslist.com/list/
