Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: New module prototype - Test::Referenced

by Natanael (Acolyte)
on May 15, 2010 at 21:27 UTC ( #840167=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: New module prototype - Test::Referenced
in thread New module prototype - Test::Referenced

I must say, that I did not know Test::Regression, till now, and yes, it is in some ways similar to my idea.

For the moment, I'm using is_deeply() from Test::More, but it could be interesting to implement a set of functions similar to ones from Test::Deep, but which would load their reference from file, instead of having it given in test. It could be an almost-drop-in replacement :-D

Also, I like the idea behind $ENV{TEST_REGRESSION_GEN}, and I'll implement an equivalent.

Thank You for the valuable feedback :)


Comment on Re^2: New module prototype - Test::Referenced
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: New module prototype - Test::Referenced
by SilasTheMonk (Chaplain) on May 16, 2010 at 10:11 UTC
    Why don't you go one further and actually use Test::Deep and Test::Regression in your implementation. I am sure both authors would appreciate any feedback generated and your module would have that much less code in it. It would make sense then to rename it Test::Deep::Regression or some variant thereof.

      At the moment, is_deeply from Test::More is all that I need to get the job done, so I intend to make a 'base' that requires just that (not counting YAML::Any).

      I agree, that I can (and probably will) use Test::Deep to support more advanced comparison methods. Yet, I see this as an optional expansion, using both: Test::Deep and mine 'base', maybe as separate (sub)package.

      I have looked into the source of Test::Regression and I can not just use it's (only?) function as-is. I would have to rewrite it to do what I intend, in the way I intend... or write another, similar sub... and add some post-exit handling to the module... I'm afraid, that after all the refactoring, not much would be left from the original module. :( Not to mention, that in my case, workflow is a bit different.
      I can't tell, whether it's actually good, or bad, as I lack the experience, but for the moment it does not 'feel' right to me.
      I hope, that when I post the working module for review/critic this will be more evident.

        At least you thought about it. I think that's worthwhile.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://840167]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (11)
As of 2015-07-30 08:37 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (270 votes), past polls