in reply to Interactive Tests

Do you mean Test::Harness? If not, I'm confused (and I wrote a few pieces of Test::More. If so, then whatever happens when you type make test is important. It probably launches a program which uses T::H which launches your tests... but I can't guarantee that without seeing your Makefile. If that is the case, then you need to modify that code to pass arguments to your test files.

However, if this were my project, I'd remove all traces of interactivity from the tests, as you lose the prime benefit of automated tests if you remove automation. It's okay to use separate, manual tests as long as you're clear that they're separate and manual.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Interactive Tests
by starX (Chaplain) on Feb 16, 2008 at 16:55 UTC
    Thanks for the guidance, chromatic. The more I've thought about it, the more it makes sense to have the automatic tests do basic things like make sure key data is present (not undef), and then print a note about running a manual format check to be sure. I'm thinking the folks in Ops won't have a problem with that as long as I make it very clear which separate test they should run.