Ignoring the other issues and focusing on the important one: test.pl does not count as "tests." I've read through it and it looks reasonably comprehensive (tough to say, though), but it doesn't play well with Test::Harness. That's why it has all of the test failures being reported. Why the author decided to ignore the standard way of reporting tests, I can't say, but this does not inspire any confidence in me. If it starts to use Test::More, Test::Class, or some other testing tool that reports its output to Test::Harness, I'll take another look. Right now, because this type of software would be foundational, I can't recommend it. That would be irresponsible of me. (By this token, I even admit that a lot of my older code falls into the "can't recommend" category.)
Cheers,
Ovid
New address of my CGI Course.
In reply to Re^3: object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise?
by Ovid
in thread object-relational Perl programming: best practice or compromise?
by metaperl
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |