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:
where My::Object actually tests for the existence of each required parameter, and croak()s if one of them is missing.my $foo = My::Object->new(); my $hashref = $foo->getDetails( PARAM_ONE => 1234, PARAM_TWO => 4321 ) +;
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.)
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: too much testing?
by merlyn (Sage) on Sep 30, 2005 at 18:51 UTC | |
by geektron (Curate) on Sep 30, 2005 at 19:19 UTC | |
by leriksen (Curate) on Oct 03, 2005 at 01:25 UTC | |
by geektron (Curate) on Oct 03, 2005 at 04:14 UTC | |
by leriksen (Curate) on Oct 03, 2005 at 06:35 UTC | |
| |
Re: too much testing?
by rvosa (Curate) on Sep 30, 2005 at 19:29 UTC | |
by geektron (Curate) on Sep 30, 2005 at 20:17 UTC | |
Re: too much testing?
by pemungkah (Priest) on Oct 03, 2005 at 06:07 UTC | |
by ForgotPasswordAgain (Priest) on Oct 03, 2005 at 09:30 UTC | |
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Oct 03, 2005 at 13:45 UTC | |
by geektron (Curate) on Oct 03, 2005 at 08:12 UTC |
Back to
Meditations