David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I'm in complete agreement with you here, but just to clarify something
> that became clear to me only when Eric and I discussed it on IRC, what
> Eric is thinking of is basically turning a loop of unknown length into a
> single test. So to use your examples, it would be:
>
> test {
> for my $thing (@things) {
> is $thing, "something";
> }
> }
>
> Somehow, in this example, the `is` would be a subtest, and therefor
> uncounted. The call to test() is a single test.
>
> Personally, I think this is a bad idea, because I *want* to count how
> many tests are run for @things. But what Eric seems to be talking about
> is some kind of subtest, AFAICT.
Additionally, it's just pushing the problem down a level.
> Yeah, I think Eric is thinking that "those bits with randomness would be
> counted as only one test, run in a call to `test {}`.
And now how do you know you wrapped all those things in test {}?
Nope. For my money the best solution to the problem of having a reliable plan
without having to count the number of tests is simply the done_testing() flag.
--
"Clutter and overload are not an attribute of information,
they are failures of design"
-- Edward Tufte
