On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:07:36PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > You are also circumventing the isolation part of the xUnit model, > because you don't get setup/teardown for each test data. Possibly you > don't care about that in this case, but if you did, you wouldn't be able > to do the above, so I consider this another limitation.
I can happily call the setup/teardown methods inside the loop if I need to. They're just normal methods. > So to me, the above code is basically Test::More style, just using > methods for organization. *That* code yes. But it was your example ... > On that note, it seems that for some people the appeal of xUnit-style > testing is less the model above (failure == exception, isolation), > and more the modularity and reuse you can get by writing your tests > with objects. failure = exception, per se, no. However, I can throw exceptions if I want and Test::Class will DTRT, so that's another advantage. isolation, yes. But I don't think you mean the same thing by this as I do. That said, I tend much more towards startup/shutdown that setup/teardown. Moduluarity and reuse: who doesn't love that? :) Tony
