httpd-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: t_cmp oddities
Date Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:20:07 GMT
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>I like that idea of adopting all of T::M. However, does T::M have a
>>comparable function to t_cmp that gives the expected and received
>>values? I *really* like the verbose output that t_cmp gives!
> is() is similar in many ways to t_cmp() except it doesn't support array
> comparisons, regular expressions, and some of the other things t_cmp() does.
>  but Test::More has stuff like like(), is_deeply(), and unlike() (which has
> no Apache-Test equivalent).  Test::More is a bit different in that you only
> get the expected/received messages when things fail IIRC.
> that said, integrating Apache-Test with Test::More is a bit difficult - you
> get all kinds of redefined sub warnings because both Apache::Test and
> Test::More export plan() and ok() into the test's namespace.  I originally
> thought that I could create a simple Apache::TestMore class that merely
> exported all the right stuff, but it ends up being a bit more complex than
> that.  so, it's on my todo list at the moment but I just haven't had the
> time.  if someone beats me to it, great :)

The main problem is the dependency which we we don't want to create in 
Apache-Test. Though nothing prevents from you, William, to use T::M in your 
test suite. Apache::TestUtil simply is a smaller T::M-like library, but you 
don't have to use it.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message