On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: > On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote: > [snip] > >NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off > >the mark > >but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land. > > Just so I'm clear - I'm /not/ saying any of this is impossible with > T::M and friends. That's obviously silly since you can build an xUnit > framework with Test::Builder and friends. > > What xUnit gives you is a little bit more infrastructure to make these > sorts of task easier.
That's fair enough but that infrastructure is just extra baggage in some cases. Actually, just after I wrote the email, I realised I had used xUnit before, in Delphi. With DUnit, testing a single class takes a phenomenal amount of boilerplate code and I guess that's why I'd blocked it from my memory :). As you say, we already have a good chunk of xUnit style with Test::Harness, with each .t file corresponding somewhat to a "suite" but without the nestability. I think the baggage only pays for itself when you end up doing a lot of inheriting between test classes, F
