On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:28:57PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > In my recently released File::Finder module, I have the basic > tests to ensure that the find options are grabbed correctly, > and that the core and/or/not/parens logic is clean, along with > the easy test to ensure that eval() works. > > However, to test the file operations, like "files named moe", I have > to test a live file tree. Or do I? > > I was hoping to leverage off the tests for find2perl, because that's > exactly what I'd be testing as well. Alas, none. The tests for File::Find > are rather simple, because there it's more about the mechanism and > the odd cases (like symlinks) than about individual file properties. > > Should my test come with a tar file that gets extracted? Should I > build a small tree on the fly?
If you're not planning on your tests modifying the test tree at all, you can probably just get away with having t/tree/... as a bunch of normal files and directorys in the tarball. Don't ship a seperate tar file, that introduces unnecessary dependencies. If you plan on making changes to the tree you'll need some way to setup/teardown the tree between test runs to ensure its clean. In that case a tarball or small perl script would be best. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ I've just gone through a lung-crushing breakup with my blender and I don't think I should screw my forehead alone tonight.
