use Perl

• Test::Unit is dead. Long live the Test::Unit::Lite (Score:1)

  by d3xter (8837)

  Please. some people just want to use real OO test suite, not just poor Test::Simple.
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    Test::Class is the way to go here. It also integrates with all of the standard Perl testing libraries. It doesn't look like Test::Unit::Lite does that.
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by d3xter (8837)

      Standard Perl testing libraries have poor and ugly non-OO API. Theirs tests also don't die after failure which differs from JUnit, PerlUnit, etc.
      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ovid (2709)

        I should also add that if you really want to march to a different drummer and use a piece of software that virtually no one else will touch, that's fine, but at least see if you can submit patches to it so that it can at least output TAP and integrate with standard testing tools.
        • Re: (Score:1)

          by d3xter (8837)

          Well, yes. It means that the standard testing tool are really TAP protocol and Test::Harness module, not Test::Simple or Test::More.

          BTW, I'd like to see support for nested tests for TAP protocol, something like:
1..3
unit 1..2
ok PASS unit 1/1
ok PASS unit 1/2
unit 1..1
ok PASS unit 2/1
unit 1..3
ok PASS unit 3/1
not ok Something goes wrong with 3/2
ok PASS unit 3/3


          It is sad that the JUnit model really can't be implemented with Perl's TAP because TAP protocol
          • Re:Test::Unit is dead. Long live the Test::Unit::L (Score:2)

            by Ovid (2709) on 2008.09.17 6:16 (#64994) Homepage Journal

            Agreed. This is a serious limitation of TAP. If you'd like to push for this, sign up for the TAP IETF mailing list and we can work on getting it done. [oreilly.com]

            On the other hand, the xUnit model which says "die on failure and you have no choice in the matter" doesn't fit well with TAP, either. Tough to assert a leading plan of eight tests when it dies after three and you get a second failure because you didn't complete the plan (unless you artificially fill in a bunch of useless failing tests to pad things out). The "die on failure" attitude is extremely helpful, but making it mandatory is extremely unhelpful.

            Of course, it's issues like this which reinforce the need for the IETF process :)

            Reply to This

            Parent