Re^6: Self Testing Modules

... if your code is 100 lines, and your tests 1000 (a not unreasonably ratio IMO) ...

If you are writing 1000 lines of tests to verify 100 lines of code, your code is testing your tests, and not the other way around.

And frankly if you are using the test framework to get a pretty number telling you "XX.X% passed" then you aren't using the test framework properly.

It isn't a case of what I'm doing, it's what they do--and the reason I don't use them!

Anyway, i dont expect youll change your views..,

Nor do I expect others to eshew de rigueur based upon my rejection of it, but counterpoint is a goood thing wouldn't you agree?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^6: Self Testing Modules

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Self Testing Modules by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2005 at 00:20 UTC
If you are writing 1000 lines of tests to verify 100 lines of code, your code is testing your tests, and not the other way around. Heh, well, ok, maybe thats a bit high. :-) OTOH, A hundred lines of code can involve an awful lot of behaviour that needs testing, especially in perl, and IME test code tends to be quite chunky anyway. Maybe stating a hard and fast ratio is not so easy, but i believe the point is still sound. --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^7: Self Testing Modules by adrianh (Chancellor) on Dec 19, 2005 at 15:12 UTC
It isn't a case of what I'm doing, it's what they do--and the reason I don't use them! XX.X% passed is not the only information you get out of a T::B based test suite. It's certainly not the information I'm focused on when I'm developing. All I'm looking for is whether the last test I wrote passed or failed. Personally I find that the existing tools give me this info pretty easily. Especially now that Test::Builder displays the test description so that it can be read without dropping into verbose mode. The only place I find this information more tricky to find, sad to say, is with my own Test::Class - and I'm working on fixing that :-) This isn't to say the pretty numbers and statistical summaries are completely useless. While it's not of much relevance during development, it can be a useful diagnostic tool at install/distribution time.	[reply]