use Perl

• How does this compare to Test::Inline? (Score:1)

  by dagolden (6584) on 2006.08.24 4:47 (#49546) Journal

  This sounds very similar to Test::Inline [cpan.org]. How does Test::Pod::Snippets compare?

  Reply to This

  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Yanick (3196)

    It's very similar indeed. The big difference is that T::P::S extracts the code to test directly from the pod, whereas with T::I you have to explicitly add the test code. In other words, T::I don't do any dark voodoo magic with the pod, it just deal with files that contains code, pod and tests.

    For example, with T::I you'd have to write:

    =head2 Foo

That's how you do it:

  # will set $x to 'baz'
  my $x = bar( $y );


    =begin testing
my $x = bar( $y );
is $x => 'baz';
=end tes
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dagolden (6584)

      Ah -- I didn't get that part.

      As a result, you've got the opposite problem from Test::Inline -- you have to specially flag verbatim code that isn't related to testing. (E.g. synopses and random examples).

      Some say pota-TOE and some say po-TAH-to...

      I think it's worth highlighting that difference to Test::Inline in a SEE ALSO section.

      I also don't particularly like the way you're using =for test ignore followed by a blank line as parser flag. In my opinion, that meets the letter of the Pod syntax but v
      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Yanick (3196)

        As a result, you've got the opposite problem from Test::Inline -- you have to specially flag verbatim code that isn't related to testing. (E.g. synopses and random examples).

        Actually, it's mostly the synopses and the random examples that I am interested to run. They just tend to be stuff that you write directly in the docs and never get around testing, or just get out of sync with the code as time passes by.

        And yeah, seen like that, T::P::S is a wee bit like the alter-ego of T::I from the Alternate Univ