Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.

by zby (Vicar)
on Feb 27, 2008 at 11:00 UTC ( #670586=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.

I fail to see how the whole argument connects to you distaste of the Test:: modules. Is there anything in particular about the Test:: suite of modules that you don't like - or do you want to say that no test suite will be appropriate in 100% cases?


Comment on Re: Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.
Re^2: Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Feb 27, 2008 at 19:11 UTC
    Is there anything in particular about the Test:: suite of modules that you don't like - or do you want to say that no test suite will be appropriate in 100% cases?

    You've both missed my point, and made it exactly with your assumption that the only way to construct a test suite is to use Test::*.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      Sorry, but I don't see where I am assuming anything - I am just asking a question. You say:
      Anyone who's been around here for a while (and still bothers to read my posts), will know I have a distaste for Test::* suite of modules
      and I am asking what is it that you don't like about them. Is it something specific to that set of modules, or is it something along the lines that there cannot be any good set of test modules? Or maybe you are using it as a metaphor for testing in general?
      I'd love to see you elaborate on alternative techniques. Testing is often seen as a chore, and in the shop I work in, the problem is a blatant lack of testing (especially automated). More productive testing strategies might help push testing among peers, and that would be a good thing.

      Better ideas for more productive testing are always welcome to me, but I'm not sufficiently trained or smart enough to derive more productive testing strategies from what you've written so far. I do use Smart::Comments, which I think you've mentioned, a little, but probably not as effective as I could. Also, there must be more to your techniques than using that?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://670586]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (16)
As of 2014-08-22 18:01 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (163 votes), past polls