4 out of 5 found this review helpful:
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Good API but this distribution is too old, I swith to Test-Unit-Lite and recommand all people to switch too.
Loic Dreux - 2008-01-10T07:54:16
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
4 out of 4 found this review helpful:
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Test::Unit is of course a fine module. But if you are shopping around for testing framework, I recommend you try Test::Class instead, which combines the best of two worlds. First, you get xUnit style, but I think with a slightly simpler interface. Second, you get to use all the standard Perl testing stuffs like Test::Simple, Test::More and Test::Harness. This is better because it's what most Perl modules use (so you might be more familiar with it if you're a Perl programmer), plus there are more kinds of "assert" functions in Test::More and friends compared to Test::Unit::Assert.
David Garamond - 2007-11-17T03:47:49
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
4 out of 5 found this review helpful:
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Test-Unit
(0.25)
This is the perl testing library to use if you are going to build out tests for large perl applications and libraries. I definitely recommend it. It provides a lot more control than the standard Test::Simple and Test::More libraries. Tests are more maintainable and readable.
rabble - 2007-03-07T15:12:26
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
6 out of 7 found this review helpful:
Test-Unit
(0.25)
Test-Unit
(0.25)
I like Test::Unit - it makes it much easier to create tests that are isolated from each other.
One annoyance: Unless you specify a list of tests to run, the tests arerun in random order. It would be nicer if the default was to run tests in the order in which they appear - maybe doing a simple search through the file for the 'sub' declarations could help fix this. I'll have a look...
See also, my blog posting: twoalpha.blogspot.com/2005/11/unit-te...
Matisse Enzer - 2006-01-08T14:02:54
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
1 hidden unhelpful review
