Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery

Re: RFC: Test::Cases -- Worth releasing?

by qq (Hermit)
on Sep 19, 2005 at 21:00 UTC ( #493304=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to RFC: Test::Cases -- Worth releasing?

Release it. I just wrote very similar code for a bunch of xml filter modules. Take some xml, change it, spit it out.

I use a data directory with pairs of source/expected files (They get named test_name.a.source, test_name.a.expected, test_name.b.source, test_name.b.expected, ...) If there is failure, I write a failure file to the same directory, with a timestamp appended. This is for easy diffs. I'd definitely like to have separate source/expected files.

I still have individual .t files, so I can add tests that don't fit into the other structure.

Comment on Re: RFC: Test::Cases -- Worth releasing?
Select or Download Code

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://493304]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (11)
As of 2015-09-04 14:59 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred temperature scale is:

    Results (139 votes), past polls