Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

petdance (2468)

petdance
  andy@petdance.com
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
AOL IM: petdance (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: petdance (Add User, Send Message)
Jabber: petdance@gmail.com

I'm Andy Lester, and I like to test stuff. I also write for the Perl Journal, and do tech edits on books. Sometimes I write code, too.

Journal of petdance (2468)

Monday March 22, 2004
04:22 PM

A testing story with a happy ending

[ #18016 ]
It all started easily enough. There was a little note sent to the Perl bug database:

    perlop man page mentions: Binary "x" is the repetition operator
    ... repeated the number of times specified by the right operand.

    It should mention what about if the right operand is negative, e.g.,
    print '-' x -80

I figured I could make a quick documentation fix, and maybe even add some automated tests to the Perl test suite.

The x operator in Perl does repetition on a scalar or list, as appropriate. For example:

    $a = "abc" x 2;     # $a = "abcabc";
    @a = ("abc") x 2;   # @a = ("abc","abc");

If the right-hand operator is 0, then you get an empty scalar or list, as appropriate. If the right-hand operator was negative, it was the same effect as having it be zero. As the bug said, the man page didn't say anything about it.

I added a little sentence to the paragraph describing the operator, and then I added some tests. If it's worth documenting, it's worth testing. Documentation and tests are as much a part of the code as the code itself.

t/op/repeat.t already had a lot of tests in it, like:

    is('-' x 5, '-----',    'compile time x');
    is('-' x 1, '-',        '  x 1');
    is('-' x 0, '',         '  x 0');

So I added the obvious add-ons:

    is('-' x -1, '',        '  x -1');
    is('-' x undef,'',      '  x undef');

And then went to add them to the list-related sections:

    @x = qw( a b c );
    is(join('', (@x) x -14), '', '(@x) x -14');

Before I sent the patch in, I ran a full make test and found that the last test didn't pass. In fact, it caused a Panic in Perl, and the program died. I boiled it down to a simple:

    perl -e'@x=(1);@y=(@x)x-1'

Turns out that that case of a negative or zero operand wasn't handling the stack correctly (in the bleadperl only, fortunately). A quick patch made it all better.

Some morals to this story:

  1. Never underestimate the power of one little test.
  2. There is no such thing as a dumb test.
  3. Your tests can often find problems where you're not expecting them.
  4. Test that everything you say happens actually does happen.
  5. If it's worth documenting, it's worth testing.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I want to get automated tests going in our shop, and I'd like to frame your points 1 and 2, and put them on the wall.

    • Sure, go ahead. Point #2 is in one of my presentations at http://petdance.com/perl/ [petdance.com]. I also made a slightly different version that was less code-intensive if that would help.

      Heck, I'll come talk to your user group about testing, if you want...

      --

      --
      xoa

      • I can't agree more. Testing is underappreciated in coding, as well as in system administration. I've seen people do major upgrades without doing any testing afterwords. ugh. (and if it's a good enough test to do after an upgrade, why isn't it automated and added to your Nagios configuration?)

        Oh well. I'm preaching to the converted.

    • Hi Andy,

            I'll add a few (for what it's worth - after spending some time writing test code today) to the list (and a few q's)
    btw I'm coming from a python [python.org]
    testing pov so I'm curious how testing approachs differs for perl.

    *automate where possible
    -write automated test tools to generate test code stubs from source code
      to save time, effort and concentrate on thinking about tests.
    *make tests pass by default
    -lots of talk about failing code by default. the reverse is faste

    --
    bootload [netspace.net.au], groking softwa
  • *write the tests before writing the code? -when do you write them?

    Short version:

    1. Think about what the code should do.
    2. Think about the API.
    3. Write the documentation for the code, explaining what the parms do.
    4. Write the test code that uses the API.
    5. Keep doing #3 and #4 until all the cases are covered. "Oooh, I hadn't thought of the case where a length is negative." So you type in the docs "If the length passed is negative, then a warning is thrown," and then write the test that tests that. Or vice vers
    --

    --
    xoa