Re^9: Test::More and is

well, calling the routine in question gives me the correct list, so i just need to check and make sure that it's populated.

I'm probably misunderstanding, but....

If you know it is the correct list, why do you need to check if it's populated?

Wouldn't it be better to check for the correct list being returned anyway? Even if you are 100% certain that the current code works, you might break something later on and a more concrete test will catch that.

Isn't a more concrete is_deeply() test is simpler to write?

Comment on Re^9: Test::More and is_array

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Test::More and is_array by geektron (Curate) on Jun 17, 2005 at 05:21 UTC
i'm being ... overly paranoid because of the huge changes to the underlying database structure.	[reply]
Re^11: Test::More and is_array by adrianh (Chancellor) on Jun 17, 2005 at 21:50 UTC
i'm being ... overly paranoid because of the huge changes to the underlying database structure. Fair enough, but to my eyes your proposed tests: `my $list = $object->foundation_list; ok( ref( $list ) eq 'ARRAY', 'returned a list' ); ok( scalar( @$list ), 'returned a populated list' ); ok( ref( $list->[0] ) eq 'HASH', 'first element is a hashref ...' );` [download] are less paranoid than the more concrete test: `is_deeply( $object->foundation_list, [ { ... whatever ... } ] );` [download] It does all the type checking and makes sure it's been populated with the correct values.	[reply] [d/l] [select]