3 ms·

I find the assert_equal and so on much more readable than the "English" style. What does "should" mean? It's not as intuitive as assert.

• jrockway 16y ago
  Yeah, rspec looks confusing as fuck. Here's how we do it in Perl: is $got, $expected, 'is got eq expected?'; ok $foo, 'foo is true'; like $some_string, qr/foo bar/, 'some string contains foo bar'; cmp_ok $got, '<', $expected, 'got is less than expected'; No need to learn some new language. It's just Perl. (The only confusing part is whether it's $got, $expected or $expected, $got. But I guess that part is arbitrary, like calling "ok" "ok" instead of n"is_the_first_argument_some_sort_of_true_value".)
  • viraptor 16y ago
    But Test::More and others have other issues. How most modules do it in Perl usually means: by not cleaning global state between tests and without any isolation. It bit me so many and I wonder why people keep doing it that way. I honestly expect a lot of cpan modules to have some tests that pass only because they don't run on a clean environment since I found some cases like that already.
    • jrockway 16y ago
      I don't program with globals, so this have never been a problem. I also feel it's outside the scope of a discussion on syntax. Finally, I am trying to fix this problem with: http://github.com/jrockway/eval-clean http://github.com/jrockway/eval-clean. It basically gives you an object that is a PerlInterpreter object, completely isolated inside. The only issue is keeping the lexical scope between eval calls, and I've almost figured out how to do this. (No, Lexical::Persistence is not even close to an acceptable solution :)