Re: Test::More : I'd need a "not

Using a negated test works great, if your sub returns false for the error.

Lately, Damian has been urging us to die when things go wrong. If my_sub follows that advice, then you need more than a negated test. You need an eval like this:

eval {
    my_sub( 'bad param count' );
};
is( $@, 'your error message', 'test name' );
[download]

Which supports the OP's point that a not_ok might be in order, but only to test for a correct death message.

Comment on Re: Test::More : I'd need a "not_ok()" function... Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Test::More : I'd need a "not_ok()" function... by wazoox (Prior) on Oct 14, 2005 at 15:05 UTC
That's exactly what's happening to me! `my_sub('bad')` actually dies, that's my problem... a `not_ok()` would allow less cluttered test scripts than `eval {...}; is($@, 'something', 'test');` I dare trying using a good ol' ugly prototype : `sub not_ok(&$) { my $coderef = shift; my $message = shift; eval $coderef; ok( $@, $message) } # call this way not_ok( sub { mysub('bad data') }, 'message')` [download] How do you find this? Not refined, but works.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Test::More : I'd need a "not_ok()" function... by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Oct 14, 2005 at 15:25 UTC
I wouldn't call it 'not_ok', as that suggests 'ok !'. You want to test it dying, so I'd call it something like: 'die_cmp' (for exact testing of the die message) or 'die_like' (for regex testing of the die message). `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]
Re^3: Test::More : I'd need a "not_ok()" function... by philcrow (Priest) on Oct 14, 2005 at 16:01 UTC
I'm no expert on the internals of Test::More, but your method looks fine to me. I would follow the previous suggestion and call it die_ok or something similar. The maintainers usually have good opinions about the names. Phil	[reply]
Re^3: Test::More : I'd need a "not_ok()" function... by bluto (Curate) on Oct 14, 2005 at 16:12 UTC
The main problem with this is that the routine you are testing must die. You can't use it for tests that just return 0 for failure (i.e. the opposite of what "ok()" does). Perhaps it should be named something like "should_die"? Also, you may want to use 'like()' instead of 'ok()' if you are matching a die message that contains dynamic information (e.g. filename, line number, stack trace, etc).	[reply]