I'm new to the automated testing game. I'm actually enjoying learning something new and useful that will make enhancements/ bug fixes down the line easier. I hate introducing a bug when fixing another .... and not discovering it until the client calls complaining.
But I think I'm going overboard. I have a set of data classes, one of which has a function that requires 2 arguments. Let's say:
my $foo = My::Object->new();
my $hashref = $foo->getDetails( PARAM_ONE => 1234, PARAM_TWO => 4321 )
where My::Object actually tests for the existence of each required parameter, and croak()
s if one of them is missing.
Test::More doesn't seem to have a method for testing this, unless I'm missing something. There's like and unlike , and is and isn't , but i don't see a not_ok .
So, I wonder if I'm getting a bit overzealous because I'm digging testing. Is the "missing" subroutine an indication that nobody else bothers to test for such conditions? Or just an oversight by the module author? (Yes, I know the author is milling around here.)