Test-Harness reviews


RSS | Module Info | Add a review of Test-Harness

Test-Harness (3.22) *****

I'd like to know what version of tar (probably an ancient one) that the last poster was using, because 3.21 and 3.22 both extract correctly, with paths. If there IS an option that needs to be used in order to compensate for this ancient tar, we (perl module maintainers in general) need to know about it.

And of course, this is a VERY good module. Kepp it up, AndyA!

Curtis Jewell - 2010-08-14T21:38:35 (permalink)

Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Test-Harness (3.12) *****

Test::Harness has always been useful - but since the 3.x release we've had something much more flexible that's letting me do some things easily that used to take terribly evil hacks with Test::Harness::Straps. Often just with the standard prove commend line. Nice.

Adrian Howard - 2008-06-24T09:34:17 (permalink)

5 out of 5 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Test-Harness (3.10) *****

I've found the new TAP::Harness (+ TAP::Parser et. al.) a much welcome improvement in the world of Perl QA. Here's why:

1. The TAP:: & Prove:: framework is well-thought-out and extensible.

It seems many lessons have been learned from Test::Harness & Test::Harness::Straps. TAP::Harness preserves Test::Harness' functionality, and does away with several of its limitations, extensibility being a key one from my POV (there's always going to be something that your company needs or does differently).

As I was writing TAP::Formatter::HTML I found TAP::Parser & TAP::Parser::Aggregator easy to use - the events make sense & the data is well-structured, which makes moulding it into your own format simple. And that you can now easily merge stdout & stderr is *extremely* handy. Finally, if a TAP::* module doesn't do something you need, there's no excuse now: you can just subclass! [update: though some things could be easier to subclass, see RT 36397]

2. The new 'prove' utility makes it *really* easy to run tests.

Why's this so important? Because in my experience, the harder it is to write & run tests the less likely it is for developers to actually write & use them. An unused test suite is a useless. Anything that takes away barriers to entry & use is a Good Thing in my books.

I also like the fact that 'prove' is also designed to be extensible & configurable (eg: ~/.proverc to save you repeating yourself). This makes it feel like a handy unix utility rather than just something that is only used for testing Perl code.

Steve Purkis - 2008-05-20T10:39:38 (permalink)

9 out of 9 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Test-Harness (2.40) *****

The basic test harness is all well and good, but prove is where it's at. It makes running my tests, all together or one at a time, to gather information or just to ensure correct functionality, trivial. prove has made me want to write more tests, organize my tests more clearly, and has made testing easier to force on coworkers. It's like there's a party in my test directory, and everyone's invited.

Ricardo Signes - 2004-01-08T03:20:39 (permalink)

3 out of 3 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Test-Harness (2.36) *****

I love the new 'prove' testing tool. It's a great help when developing and testing. For example, it makes it easy to be "verbose" when making tests, and to pick out just a few tests to run. Like this:

prove -v -b t/01setup.t t/15specific_test.t t/99cleanup.t

It's much more convenient for me than trying to do the same thing with "make test".

Mark Stosberg - 2003-11-15T10:04:25 (permalink)

3 out of 3 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No
1 hidden unhelpful review