Re^2: Mocking isa under Test::Deep (sentinel)

The authors of a test tool have unilaterally decided that you [...] are [not] allowed to use a comparator function that they didn't provide,

A more accurate summary would be that a test tool uses a special class as a sentinel and complains if a sentinel value turns up in a place where it has no business being. Meanwhile, a sloppy hack to get around draconian type checking had the side effect of making a non-sentinel appear to be a sentinel. The solution was to make the hack slightly less sloppy.

I would put more blame on the type checking that requires the hack than on the use of an internal class name as a way to create and detect sentinels.

- tye

Comment on Re^2: Mocking isa under Test::Deep (sentinel)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Mocking isa under Test::Deep (sentinel) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 03, 2016 at 04:26 UTC
A more accurate summary would be ... I'll take your word on that. I just looked through it all again and I can see that my original conclusion was less than the full story. That said, the breaking change is to Test::Deeply; appears (to me) to be digging into the guts of perl (via Scalar::Util::blessed()) to prevent their users from using fairly ordinary OO techniques to bypass their checks; and breaking stuff that worked for their users, all for the sake of the unjustified* and nebulous goal of 'improvement' of their own code base. That's akin to Stanley embossing a weak point on the shafts of their screwdrivers to prevent users from using them as levers. (*As in, not explained anywhere I could find.) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^4: Mocking isa under Test::Deep (blessed vs isa) by tye (Sage) on May 03, 2016 at 17:26 UTC
appears (to me) to be digging into the guts of perl (via Scalar::Util::blessed()) to prevent their users from using fairly ordinary OO techniques to bypass their checks Actually not. You could remove the use of Scalar::Util::blessed() and the code would function identically. Test::Deep is using isa() to enable users to extend the Test::Deep::Cmp functionality using ordinary OO techniques. If they had actually used blessed() in a way that prevents such extending then the "breaking change" would have been avoided. Replace the new code: `if (! $Expects and Scalar::Util::blessed($d1) and $d1->isa("Test::Deep +::Cmp"))` [download] with code that looks too closely under the covers: `if (! $Expects and Scalar::Util::blessed($d1) eq "Test::Deep::Cmp")` [download] and the fact that isa() was intentionally broken in order to do a sloppy hack to subvert draconian type checking would not have mattered. - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks