> Am I correct to say that Test::More is in the core for all but 5.6.1 the > required minimum by mp2?
yes, but see below - we would have further version restrictions if we chose to make T::M the engine for the entire mp2 test suite. > so if we make a dependency on Test::More only > the 5.6.1 users will have to figure out how to get this module before > they can start building modperl? they shouldn't need the dependency to build mod_perl, only to test it :) > If we agree to go with the switch to > T::M, do we have sufficient functionality with T::M shipped with 5.8.0 > for example? i.e. is 5.6.1 the only perl version that we need to require > users to do an extra operation or do we require a specific T::M version, > in which case many other distros are affected? to use Test::More for server side tests (a la t/response/foo.pm) we need at least version 0.49, which was not even in 5.8.5. client tests can use any version of T::M as far as I know. so really, if you want unlike() (or whatever) you would need to do that on a per-test basis. otherwise you would essentially be preventing a large portion of the userbase from running the test suite as a whole. I'm not entirely convinced this is unacceptable, but I'm sure you are, so I'll give in here :) anyway, in the end I guess I wouldn't suggest moving to T::M entirely just yet. but if you want to use it occasionally within certain tests I think that's fine. > I understand that Test::More's behavior is preferrably at run time, yeah, that's the issue for me - t_cmp() prints out too much cruft when everything is just fine. > since it prints out the data only when there are problems. But how do > you develop a new test if you have no way to force Test::More to print > the compared values? I just trust is() - if you develop tests first then it always fails until you get things right :) > That's the only reason why I prefer t_cmp() to is(). I can see that. --Geoff
