On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:17:05PM -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 12:45 -0800, Ovid wrote: > > > Yes, I can see that. I could actually have dropped Test::Differences > > "eq_or_diff" and just used the "is_deeply" function from Test::More, > > but when working with large data structures, there's just no comparison > > between the two. I suppose I could make Test::Differences optional and > > fall back on is_deeply if they don't have T:D installed. > > At some point, people install modules for the convenience of not writing > that code themselves. I think they'll survive if you require modules > for the convenience of not having to write that code yourself, at least > if you don't go crazy with it.
Whilst I agree with this and I am quite happy installing testing modules I decided that with Devel::Cover I didn't want to create a dependency on Test::Differences so I took the approach of using it if it is availabile. In a reasonably complicated test module it took about 9 extra lines of code to optionally use Test::Differences. It is true that there is no comparison in the quality of the test output. The only downside is that it is another configuration on which I need to test before making a release. Oh, and Test::JSON works well for me. Thanks! -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
