+1 from me! I like Test::Class and would welcome a Moose-ish variety.
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Ovid wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> People keep asking me how to properly integrate Moose with Test::Class. I
> know about Test::Able and some alternatives, but I *generally* like
> Test::Class's interfac
> So, does this look useful for folks? Is there anything you would change?
> (It's trivial to assert plans for classes and the entire test suite rather
> than rely on done_testing(), but I haven't done that yet).
I would welcome it as an option.
We use Test::Class now, but I have the sense tha
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 09:51:27 AM Ovid wrote:
> So, does this look useful for folks?
Yes, please. I would use it last month if I could.
> Is there anything you would change?
I don't *love* maintaining individual driver files (t/subsystem/feature.t),
but I do like being able to run te
Hi all,
People keep asking me how to properly integrate Moose with Test::Class. I know
about Test::Able and some alternatives, but I *generally* like Test::Class's
interface (or maybe I'm just in a comfort zone). So I wrote my own
Test::Class::Moose (it does not use Test::Class) and it uses sub
