Lazy test writing?

Ahoy, Monks.

What good modules (or other tools) are there for a lazy person writing tests for his modules? My tests seem to include a lot of redundant typing, and I want that to go away.

I'd also like to find a better, more reliable, way to find exhaustive tests than just sitting here saying "Um.. did I try that with a negative number?... How about undef?.. Uh...". I also have a fantasy that there is a tool out there that uses Devel::Cover and either writes your tests for you or writes test skeletons which one could fill in.

Any suggestions would be fantastic.

Thank'ee
--Pileofrogs

Comment on Lazy test writing?
Re: Lazy test writing? by perrin (Chancellor) on Mar 19, 2009 at 19:27 UTC
It can be a real pain to get started with, but Test::Class is good at removing repetition.	[reply]
Re: Lazy test writing? by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Mar 19, 2009 at 19:31 UTC
Why do you need suggestions from us when you make the suggestion: ...uses Devel::Cover and either writes your tests for you... - go to it :-D A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))	[reply]
Re^2: Lazy test writing? by pileofrogs (Priest) on Mar 19, 2009 at 20:49 UTC
My experience with Devel::Cover is pretty thin. Is there a way to get it to not only tell me what tests I need but also write them? That sounds a little too good to be true...	[reply]
Re: Lazy test writing? by BrowserUk (Pope) on Mar 19, 2009 at 20:00 UTC
Take a look at Test::LectroTest. Best of breed IMO. 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. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re: Lazy test writing? by doom (Deacon) on Mar 19, 2009 at 20:03 UTC
Two thoughts: (1) use some sort of templating system. I use template.el (via perlnow.el) with emacs. You can probably find some way to do it that you like. (2) cut and paste. No, seriously. I think it's usually a mistake to require your test code to meet the same standards as your production code (think about it -- "test first programming" will get you stuck in an infinite loop if you need to test your test code).	[reply]
Re: Lazy test writing? by ELISHEVA (Prior) on Mar 19, 2009 at 20:23 UTC
Laziness aside, redundant test composing increases the risk of expectation errors. Wanting to get rid of redundancy is an excellent goal. One part of the answer is to take a step back an analyze your test suite the same way you do any other pile of code: separate the data from the logic. If you have a group of tests that are the same except for some inputs and expected values, move the inputs and expected values into arrays and hashes. Then write a test suite function that takes those arrays and hashes as a parameter and runs all of the tests. I write almost all my tests this way and it is a life saver. Another trick is to group inputs according to expected value. Next write a test suite function that takes an array of inputs, and one expectation. Inside the function loop through the inputs calling your test suite function with the current input and the expected value. This is a great way to make sure that the default values really default as they should: one of the inputs contains no undefined values; the rest of the inputs replace parameters that just happen to equal the default value with undef (or omit them all together if at the end). Whether or not a defined or undefined value is in the parameter array, if your default rules are working properly they should have the same expectations. It is also a good way to make sure that exceptions and warnings are being thrown as they should be: in this case your input group is bunch of inputs that are expected to all trigger the same exceptions and warnings. Best, beth	[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks

Lazy test writing?

How many continents have you visited?