Re: [Perlunit-devel] Test::Unit/PerlUnit refactoring on branch PDC_REFACTOR

[Adam S. <ad...@sp...>]

Piers Cawley (pdc...@it...) wrote:
> [This is posted to both the perl-qa and the perlunit-devel lists]
> 
> Okay, I've just checked in a new branch of the Test::Unit CVS with
> some fairy serious changes in place. Here's the CVS log entry.
> 
> ---snip---
> Beginnings of a major refactoring.
> 
> 1. Replace Test::Unit::InnerClass with Class::Inner

There are still references to Test::Unit::InnerClass; I guess you know
about those.

> 4. Also includes an attempt at an 'assert_equals' that does the right
>    thing in most cases. Tries to make reasonable guesses about numeric or
>    string comparison, and can make use of object based equality things.

<random_idea>

If we're going to be using Attribute::Handlers, it wouldn't be much
more work to use Attribute::Util and do

 sub assert_equals : Alias(ok)

although IIRC some people don't want an ok() in the core framework,
and it would introduce more module dependencies (not that we've
shirked away from using other CPAN stuff so far).

If we did go down that road, Attribute::Protected is pretty sweet too.
Maybe not enough gain for the extra hassle though?

</random_idea>

> I've also been thinking about test 'metadata', ie skiplists and the
> like, and a little light went on:
> 
> sub test_something : todo {...}
> sub test_something : skip_if(<condition>) {...}
> sub test_something : skip {...}
> 
> TestRunners can take (or not take) notice of this information. Time to
> investigate Attribute::Handlers methinks.

Ooh ooh nice idea!  I posted a patch implementing of skiplists (I
called them filters) to this list on 5th March (subject "PATCH: adding
state to the runner(s)"), but using Attribute::Handlers is a lovely
way of tagging tests.  I can get cracking on this on Monday or
Tuesday.  Shall I branch off your branch, or commit directly to it?

> Wanted:
>
> Reports from Devel::Cover.

Nice idea!  Hadn't seen that before.

Piers Cawley (pdc...@it...) wrote:
> Right, I've made a whole load more changes on the PDC_REFACTOR branch.
> Some nice stuff there, though I do say so myself. All the tests are
> passing here (except for the try_examples.t, which has been failing
> for a while anyway I believe).

Oops, saw that too late.  Can anyone say whether my proposed change to
%guru_checked (see last post) is right or not?

> No work yet done on Skip/Todo stuff, though I've got a couple of ideas
> in that direction. I'm quite keen on tests being able to throw
> 'Test::Unit::Skip' exceptions, which the TestRunner will be able to
> recognize.

Would that be as part of or in addition to the test attributes scheme?

> This doesn't really work with TODO type tests though...

Why's that, because TODO tests have to be run to make sure they don't
succeed, or some other reason?

> Check out Test::Unit::tests::AssertTest for what I think is the
> beginnings of a neat approach to Results Matrix based testing.

Looks nice.

> I'm thinking of splitting Test::Unit::TestCase into
> Test::Unit::TestCase::Simple, which doesn't do any reflection stuff at
> all, just uses run_test, and Test::Unit::TestCase::Heavy, which will
> provide list_tests and other reflective type stuff. Right now there's
> a certain brainwarping effect when you find yourself dealing with a
> class that seems to get used in two rather different ways.

Yeah.  I'm all for keeping classes simple too.