I would class it as "cute" - but I wouldn't use it.

Bias alert. I wrote Test::Class because I wasn't happy Test::Unit. Please read the following with the appropriate grains of salt.

This is what I said about Test::Unit when I discussed other xUnit frameworks in the Test::Class documentation.

Test::Unit is a port of JUnit http://www.junit.org/ into perl. If you have used JUnit then the Test::Unit framework should be very familiar.

It is class based so you can easily reuse your test classes and extend by subclassing. You get a nice flexible framework you can tweak to your heart's content. If you can run Tk you also get a graphical test runner.

However, Test::Unit is not based on Test::Builder. You cannot easily move Test::Builder based test functions into Test::Unit based classes. You have to learn another test assertion API.

Test::Unit implements it's own testing framework separate from Test::Harness. You can retrofit *.t scripts as unit tests, and output test results in the format that Test::Harness expects, but things like todo tests and skipping tests are not supported.

So, for me, I would only recommend Test::Unit if you were really into JUnit and similar. Since it's a direct port of that framework to Perl it will be an instantly familiar environment.

Because it's a direct port it fails to take full advantage of the existing Perl testing frameworks. It's support for Test::Harness is limited, and its integration with the de-facto standard Test::Builder based modules is non-existent.

If you need fixtures, test classes, etc. then I would recommend using Test::Class instead - but I would say that wouldn't I :-)