Re: [Perlunit-devel] the old 'ok' chestnut

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

Piers Cawley (pdc...@bo...) wrote:
> "Hans Donner" <han...@us...> writes:
> 
> > I think you're at risk that youre co-workers will keep using the
> > ok() tests instead of the $self->assert. I think they better write
> > th ok wrapper themselves, instead of providing it if they want to
> > keep the ok.

Nah, they'll use assert() for new stuff if I tell 'em too, and I don't
see the point of writing the wrapper locally, since the Test.pm API is
well documented.

> Maybe if we provide our own 'ok' wrapper, but have it throw a
> 'DEPRECATED' warning the first time it's called in any program run. 
> 
>     Test::Unit::Assert::ok is deprecated, please consider moving over
>     to using Test::Unit::Assert::assert_equals and friends when
>     writing PerlUnit tests.
> 
> If we just make that happen once per run in a way that can be
> overridden (by the user defining a constant OK_IS_OK or something)
> then we get the message across.

Attribute::Deprecated handles this quite nicely, although it doesn't
seem to allow the user to override.  Worth submitting a patch to the
author, I would have thought.  Overriding via some sugar like

  use deprecated 'ok';

would be pretty cute.

> BTW, why didn't we want 'ok'?

I think the original objection was that test code should distinguish
between the different types of equality.  Your new overloading stuff
solves this very nicely though, I think.

> Note too that if 'ok' is going to be a wrapper round assert_equals then
> it's going to fail in the case 'ok $got, qr/$expected_pattern/'
> because assert_equals doesn't do regex matching (because when all's
> said and done 'matches a regex' is a strange definition of 'equals')

It's a kind of multiplexing wrapper around assert() and
assert_equals(), so the regex matching should work fine too.  I've
already committed to Assert.pm if you want to have a look.  It's not
finished yet.