Re^5: Inverting test conditions in Test::More ?

I only mention is_deeply in this sentence:

You won't need is_deeply since you don't need to check all elements.

In what way is "You won't need is_deeply" specifically about is_deeply? The approach of testing for a specific known difference in your prepared data is a general approach that works for your cases, or at least you haven't shown a counterexample.

Comment on Re^5: Inverting test conditions in Test::More ? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Inverting test conditions in Test::More ? by LanX (Saint) on Jul 24, 2020 at 13:36 UTC
The test data is generated, finding the difference manually isn't easy. Furthermore, the idea of having Boolean logic for tests is straightforward and makes the code elegant and readable. Most importantly it's generic, I can't tell which other test besides is_deeply doesn't provide a negation. And I learned a lot about the test suite, especially Test::Builder in the course of this thread, just by asking this "silly question". Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^7: Inverting test conditions in Test::More ? by hippo (Archbishop) on Jul 24, 2020 at 14:09 UTC
I can't tell which other test besides is_deeply doesn't provide a negation. From Test::More I would offer: `use_ok` `require_ok` `isa_ok` `can_ok` none of which have a negative. Technically `ok` doesn't have a negative either but the trivial workaround of negating the argument should be sufficient for that one. 🦛	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^8: Inverting test conditions in Test::More ? by LanX (Saint) on Jul 24, 2020 at 14:30 UTC
> none of which have a negative. Thanks! :) > From Test::More I would offer: May I add, from Test::More alone! There are so many more `Test::` modules out there probably not as well designed as Test::More. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l]