David E. Wheeler wrote: > 1..4? God no. I think this: > > # Planning 2 more tests at foo.t line 3. > ok 1 - First test > # Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run > # at foo.t line 6. > ok 3 - Second test > ok 4 - Third test > 1..3 > > That is, all tests should pass, but the test suite itself should fail, > just as happens now if you have the wrong number of tests. Not sure how > you'd show that, though.
Ok, makes sense. Now riddle me this, Batman: use Test::More; plan add => 1; pass("first"); pass("second"); plan add => 2; pass("third"); done_testing(3); Is that... ok 1 - first ok 2 - second # Looks like you planned 1 tests, but 2 were run # at foo.t line 3. ok 2 - third # Looks like you planned 2 tests, but only 1 was run # at foo.t line 6. 1..3 One of the issues with that approach is Test::Builder's history can't store test #2 twice. So history is lost. -- There will be snacks.