On 7 Jul 2009, at 15:47, Erik Osheim wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:10:19AM +0200, Steffen Schwigon wrote:
Maybe it's not the latest version you attached, I think it's only the
skeleton from module::starter.
Well, I suppose it's better that I sent the wrong tarball here, rather
than uploading it to CPAN, but it's still embarrassing.
Anyway, I created a new tarball (using ./Build dist; thanks for that
tip) and am attaching it.
Thanks for your encouragement,
An interesting variant. I can recall seeing a testing framework where
you passed in the validating function like that. The idea of factories
for test conditions spring to mind.... which may well be a cunning
idea or a very dim one on my part :-)
A few random comments:
1) Have you seen Test::Group? It has a similar sort of approach in the
grouping of tests in subroutines - while still using Test::More et al
for asserting what the test results should be.
2) Much of the value from Perl's test frameworks come from the stupid
number of useful testing modules that work happily with each other. I
can just pick Test::WWW::Mechanise (or whatever) off the shelf and use
it with the rest of the testing framework.
It's going to be harder for folk to adopt you approach because you
don't directly support using the testing functions that other Test::*
libraries provide. I'll have to do a fair amount of work to use
Test::WWW::Mechanize or Test::BinaryData inside a comparison function.
A standard way to wrap "normal" test functions would be useful.
3) Not the same thing really - but I think you may find
Test::LectroTest of interest if you've not already come across it.
Cheers,
Adrian
--
http://quietstars.com - twitter.com/adrianh - delicious.com/adrianh
