in reply to Re^11: swat on CPAN
in thread swat on CPAN

It is up to you of course to use this tool or not , some people found my module useful. Have you really read my doc? It has never been said about junit there!

It is only written that swat produces TAP with prove, that is all, anyone who knows what TAP and prove is might understand that this format is quite flexible. I think this is documented in quite clear and understandable way ( even though I am not a native speaker ) You of course may criticize but usually criticism might be helpful if one provide some other arguments, but the only one I can hear from you is "I still see zero reason to use this".

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^13: swat on CPAN
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:41 UTC
    I profusely apologizing for seeing TAP and reading JUnit. That was my mistake. However, you still don't understand. I call prove. Not you. Big difference.

    So let me be loud and clear here: the fact that your code is a wrapper around prove shows that it is unnecessary. There is no way in hell I would ever put this into one of my clients' production bases.

[reply]
      I take your apologies, that is ok :)

      You say that swat is wrapper around prove and that is true. But what wrong with that? Swat uses prove to run tests. But this only one small "part" of swat , the main "part" of swat is DSL to allow one creates smoke tests for web application in quite fast and simple way. This DSL does not relate to prove at all . Please read my docs to see what this DSL is. And then let's compare with other modules , it would be interesting.

      Does it make a sense ?
[reply]
        "creates smoke tests for web application in quite fast and simple way"

        Exactly. And this is the second reason why your solution is bad. When it comes to testing, QUALITY trumps QUANTITY. I could care less how fast you churn out tests if they do not catch the actual problems before they work their way into production.

[reply]

In Section Perl News