Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re^7: Introspecting function signatures

by jcb (Parson)
on Mar 06, 2021 at 21:51 UTC ( #11129216=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^6: Introspecting function signatures
in thread Introspecting function signatures

My suggestion is to just have the test routine call back into the framework:

sub test_something { my $tempdir = create_tempdir(); # ... }

Then the framework only needs to iterate over the package stash and call all test_* functions. Which leads to a "is this a good idea?" question — this style of testing means that the test routines are included with the main code and will have to be compiled every time the module is loaded. Python reduces this overhead by automatically using its form of B::Bytecode/ByteLoader but Perl does not do that, so this style will add some incremental overhead to all use of any module using it. The traditional Perl style of separate test scripts completely avoids this last problem.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Introspecting function signatures
by LanX (Sage) on Mar 06, 2021 at 22:14 UTC
    Not sure what Python is implementing with that pattern, but I know it doesn't have block-scope, OTOH nesting functions is easier there.

    So many things which are just blocks in Perl become named functions there, even lamda is useless for that.

    But no need to copy their limitations.

    My suggestion would be to apply attributes or explicit use

    sub :test something { my :TEMPDIR $tempdir = shift; # or my :FIXTURE $tempdir = shift; # or use fixture qw/$tempdir/; #... }

    This offers plenty of possibilities at compile time and is more flexible than Python's approach.

    edit

    and I'd certainly put test-subs into their own package, if they lived in the same file.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

      I'd certainly put test-subs into their own package, if they lived in the same file.

      That does not reduce the overhead problem I mentioned — the test-subs will still be compiled every time the module containing them is loaded. Only putting the tests into a separate file solves that problem.

Re^8: Introspecting function signatures
by szabgab (Priest) on Mar 07, 2021 at 05:59 UTC
    This can indeed be a good solution. Given that perl will reliably call DESTROY when an object goes out of scope, this could ensure that whatever the object holds will be cleaned up. It is a bit more code to write as we need to call the function, but might be reasonable.
    sub test_something { my $tempdir = create_tempdir(); # ... }

    I don't know where the idea came from that in Python people include the tests in the main code. Maybe that was the case 10 years ago, but these days the standard is that tests are in separate files called test_SOMETHING.py.

        I am not sure what closure are you talking about here, but the best would be if you could show a code snippet how you think it would be used in a test? And yes, it would be nice to avoid the linked problem.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11129216]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (1)
As of 2022-05-19 03:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you prefer to work remotely?



    Results (71 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?