Re: The wonders of Test::More

I'm interested to hear thoughts on what is the "correct" way to deal with this issue.

Though probably the most boring way of dealing with the issue, personally I would probably tend to simply use an ok test for a case like this... they way I see it, all the other Test::More functions are just sugar for ok.

use warnings;
use strict;
use Test::More;

my $exp = "two";
my $got = "Two";

ok $exp eq $got or diag explain [$exp, $got];

done_testing;
[download]

Comment on Re: The wonders of Test::More Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The wonders of Test::More by syphilis (Archbishop) on May 22, 2022 at 01:28 UTC
`ok $exp eq $got or diag explain [$exp, $got];` Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I don't get much sense from "`or diag explain [$exp, $got]`" when the variables are Math::MPFR objects: `C:\>perl -MMath::MPFR -MTest::More -e "$got=Math::MPFR->new(2); $exp= +Math::MPFR->new(2); ok($got != $exp) or diag explain [$exp, $got]; d +one_testing();" not ok 1 # Failed test at -e line 1. # [ # bless( do{\(my $o = 46472664)}, 'Math::MPFR' ), # bless( do{\(my $o = 46474008)}, 'Math::MPFR' ) # ] 1..1 # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1.` [download] but I could instead use something like `or warn "$got == $expected"` to provide a more meaningful diagnostic. There's probably quite a few places in my test scripts where this blow-up could occur, but the blow-up only happens with the overloaded "!=" operator, and then only if the test fails. Cheers, Rob	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: The wonders of Test::More by haukex (Archbishop) on May 22, 2022 at 04:45 UTC
I could instead use something like `or warn "$got == $expected"` That works, as well as simply naming the test e.g. `"$exp eq $got"`, or I sometimes use Data::Dump's `pp` to get properly quoted stings (since `explain` doesn't do that for simple strings).	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks