30 ms·

I liked the article. But do mediocre Perl programmers really not use Test::More? (-: Hell, even I do! :-) Testing has been central in Perl for most of a decad

by berntb 16y ago

I liked the article. But do mediocre Perl programmers really not use Test::More? (-: Hell, even I do! :-) Testing has been central in Perl for most of a decade. I browsed "Intermediate Perl" recently (I'm outsourced and will train a few newbies the coming weeks), and already that beginners' book did a good overview of testing (mocking objects, etc). Let me note that the author isn't exaggerating when he claims "Modern Perl" is really good. :-) Edit: Grammar.

zrail 16y ago
If you like Test::More you should try out Test::Mini[1]. It's xUnit-style testing like Test::Class but with less syntactic overhead and fatal assertions instead of non-fatal TAP. [1]: http://search.cpan.org/~pvande/Test-Mini-v1.1.1/ http://search.cpan.org/~pvande/Test-Mini-v1.1.1/ edit: link
- berntb 16y ago
  Why would you not use TAP?! It is easy, powerful, has lots and lots of support (I'm going to add Hudson integration tomorrow for some stuff.)
KevinMS 16y ago
I've known a few good perl programmers, and a few ok ones, and I know for certain that a lot of perl programmers came out of the dot-bomb days and back then testing just wasn't part of the culture. Not misunderstand me, writing tests for published modules was expected, but with everything from scripting to websites unit testing wasn't that common at all. It wasn't a big problem either, because when the perl shop got serious, it ramped up the QA, and even possibly had a less buggy product than today, because QA can be brutal, and unit testing can be LAZY and misguided. Testing fanboys flame me all you want, but I was there, this was common, we walked to work both ways uphill, but built the foundations of the web you see around you.
- viraptor 16y ago
  QA is a not-automated repetitive (usually acceptance) testing. It doesn't have much to do with unittests and they're definitely not interchangeable. If you compare QA and unittesting... the argument is pretty much misguided. Ideally, you should have both. And then some more automation. And quick feedback from automated tests.
- berntb 16y ago
  >>the dot-bomb days and back then testing just wasn't part of the culture. Yes, but I wrote "Testing has been central in Perl for most of a decade." I was mostly doing C++ at that time, but when I looked at Perl again a few years later -- testing was like air; everywhere. >>Testing fanboys flame me all you want Nah, I found "religion" after the dot-bomb, too. :-)

by berntb 16y ago

zrail 16y ago

If you like Test::More you should try out Test::Mini[1]. It's xUnit-style testing like Test::Class but with less syntactic overhead and fatal assertions instead of non-fatal TAP. [1]: http://search.cpan.org/~pvande/Test-Mini-v1.1.1/ http://search.cpan.org/~pvande/Test-Mini-v1.1.1/ edit: link

berntb 16y ago
Why would you not use TAP?! It is easy, powerful, has lots and lots of support (I'm going to add Hudson integration tomorrow for some stuff.)

KevinMS 16y ago

I've known a few good perl programmers, and a few ok ones, and I know for certain that a lot of perl programmers came out of the dot-bomb days and back then testing just wasn't part of the culture. Not misunderstand me, writing tests for published modules was expected, but with everything from scripting to websites unit testing wasn't that common at all. It wasn't a big problem either, because when the perl shop got serious, it ramped up the QA, and even possibly had a less buggy product than today, because QA can be brutal, and unit testing can be LAZY and misguided. Testing fanboys flame me all you want, but I was there, this was common, we walked to work both ways uphill, but built the foundations of the web you see around you.

viraptor 16y ago
QA is a not-automated repetitive (usually acceptance) testing. It doesn't have much to do with unittests and they're definitely not interchangeable. If you compare QA and unittesting... the argument is pretty much misguided. Ideally, you should have both. And then some more automation. And quick feedback from automated tests.
berntb 16y ago
>>the dot-bomb days and back then testing just wasn't part of the culture. Yes, but I wrote "Testing has been central in Perl for most of a decade." I was mostly doing C++ at that time, but when I looked at Perl again a few years later -- testing was like air; everywhere. >>Testing fanboys flame me all you want Nah, I found "religion" after the dot-bomb, too. :-)