On Jan 26, 1:41 am, Michael G Schwern <schw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I didn't look around at other interfaces. I was mostly like > "OMG the test tester is so SIMPLE now with the event system! I'll > implement it and start using it RIGHT NOW!" I haven't really thought > it through beyond that. > > I'd be *very* happy to have other people drive development of > TB2::Tester. Please, I have too much on my plate. If you tell me > your github ID I'll give you a commit bit. You're welcome to break > the interface so long as you refactor the stuff that uses it along > with it.
I have pretty much stopped perl dev and have shed maintenance of a couple of modules so I won't be stepping up to this. > As for a TB1->TB2 transition plan, the TB2::Tester approach will work > transparently with Test:: modules written with Test::Builder... as > soon as I patch up Test::Builder to not be quite so in bed with the > TAP formatter. It's the next thing on my plate. Great, F > On Jan 25, 10:48 pm, Fergal Daly <fer...@esatclear.ie> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Test::Tester has been doing exactly this for years > > >http://search.cpan.org/~fdaly/Test-Tester-0.107/ > > > but is very much tied to the Test::Builder guts (by necessity). While > > it supports what you have below, the vast majority of the time I just > > used the convenience function check_test() which expects you to run > > just a single test and combines the capture and comparison steps into > > a single call. It also has check_tests but I hardly ever used it. E.g. > > > I'll happily retire Test::Tester but I would also like to find a way > > to keep it working through the migration of Test::Builder to > > F > > > 2011/1/25 Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com>: > > > > I'm happy to announce the first rev of Test::Builder2::Tester. It lets > > > you > > > test Test:: modules without doing string compares on the TAP. You can > > > test a > > > much wider array of detail and much simpler. > > >https://github.com/schwern/test-more/blob/Test-Builder2/lib/Test/Buil... > > > > Here's an example testing Test::Simple ok(): > > > > use Test::Simple tests => 2; > > > use Test::Builder2::Tester; > > > > my $history = capture { > > > ok 2+2==5, "addition"; > > > ok 2*2==4, "multiplication"; > > > }; > > > > my $results = $history->results; > > > > result_like $results->[0], { > > > is_pass => 0, > > > name => "addition", > > > file => $0 > > > }; > > > > result_like $results->[1], { > > > is_pass => 1, > > > name => "multiplication", > > > file => $0 > > > }; > > > > done_testing; > > > > Using Chad's idea, the code being tested is isolated from the rest of the > > > test > > > inside a capture() block. This returns the complete history of whatever > > > happened inside its block. This includes every test event and result, > > > all the > > > same information Test::Builder2 uses itself. result_like() is a > > > convenience > > > function which will check only the attributes you specify and ignore the > > > rest. > > > This looks remarkably similar to Test::Tester :) > > > Please have a look at its interface (I'm a little surprised that you > > seem unaware of it). Almost all uses of it boiled down to a single > > function check_test() which was a convenience function which combines > > the 2 you have above e .g. > > > check_test( > > sub { > > is_mystyle_eq("this", "that", "not eq"); > > }, > > { > > ok => 0, # expect this to fail > > name => "not eq", > > diag => "Expected: 'this'\nGot: 'that'", > > } > > ); > > > which ensures that you ran 1 test in the sub, and then compares the > > results to those you've provided. There was also a check_tests() which > > expected an array of results and ensured you ran that many tests but > > it was almost never used. > > > > This makes testing a Test:: module much more straight forward and > > > powerful. > > > Most importantly, it shields the Test:: module from little changes to the > > > test > > > output format. > > > > TB2::Tester is currently a rough proof of concept. result_like() doesn't > > > produce much in the way of useful diagnostics. results_like() would > > > likely be > > > more convenient. It will eventually work with Test::Builder based > > > modules, > > > but they don't work without a TAP formatter just yet. > > > I would love to retire Test::Tester but it's used by Test:Deep and > > some others (and I know it's been used privately too). At the very > > least I'd like it to keep working when Test::Builder switches to using > > TB2 but it looks a lot like it could become a very thin wrapper around > > Test::Builder2::Tester which would be even better,
