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

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.
  • The benefit of done_testing() is that you can be certain that "we got this far and ran this line of code."

    But there's nothing like that in your subtest sub {}, so you can't be sure that there wasn't some a goto(), exit(), or return() which silently caused a bunch of tests to be skipped.

    Similarly, END {done_testing()} does nothing that wasn't already accomplished by 'no_plan'. Calling done_testing() at the lexical end of your file is an assertion about control flow.

    Thus, an implicit done_testing() on a 'without plan' subtest is redundant. But there are three modes here and your subtest() examples only show two: 1. plan, 2. no plan, 3. lexical plan (aka done_testing()). So:

        subtest sub {
            ok(1, 'whatever');
            done_testing()
        };

    And why not 'with_plan'/'without_plan' so we can use the quoting of the fat arrow?

    • Good points out the normal use of done_testing(). That was silly of me :)

      As for the implicit version in subtests, you won't get that with "no_plan", either, something many people are going to use anyway, if they use tests at all (well, the "exit" isn't true, but your comments about "goto" and "return" are correct). Now I think you've made the clearest arguments about this, but your arguments apply to "no_plan", also. Would you argue we not have that? We do and it won't go away.

      One argument in favor of h