Re: [Perlunit-devel] Teensy PerlUnit suggestion, and a question

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

Matthias Ferber (mf...@hi...) wrote:
> Thanks for the help, Adam, that's reassuring.  I'm not actually sure
> whether the syntax I showed as an example would be the best interpretation
> in practice, actually.  Right now, if I'm reading the code right,
> TestRunner::start() ignores all but the last argument (not counting
> switches).  I can see two reasonable ways to change that: one is to take
> the first non-switch argument as the name of the class to build a suite
> from and pass the remaining arguments to its constructor, which would
> handle the situation I'm working on and would look like my example; the
> other thing it could do is interpret all the arguments as separate test
> classes, and build a suite combining the suites from each of those
> classes. 
> 
> I like the first idea because it adds flexibility in situations like mine,
> but the second is perhaps more intuitive and maybe even more useful most
> of the time.  So I think I'll just throw these both out as possibilities
> for thought and let 'em fall where they may.

I've been wanting more control from the command-line recently too,
which has been a good reason to get off my butt and reply to your mail.
More specifically, I want to be able to control which test methods in
a suite get run by passing them as arguments.  The immediate problem
for me is that I have an equivalent of TestRunner.pl which allows
running of several suites at once, e.g.

  $ ./MyTestRunner.pl MySuite1 MySuite2

but allowing arguments to a suite would break that.  One approach I
thought of was using '--' to delimit the tests:

  $ ./TestRunner.pl --switch MyTest1 arg1a arg1b -- MyTest2 arg2a arg2b

How does that sound?

It occurs to me that I should probably merge all my runner's
enhancements back into TestRunner.pl; the latter is a rather lame
piece of code as it stands.

> Re TestRunner.pm, if you're going to clean up that part of the code
> anyway, and if do_run()  is going to be public, may I suggest naming it
> run_suite() instead for clarity? 

Good idea; added to doc/TODO.