I agree, but I'm still dubious about the granularity problem I posed. As a matter of fact, I wasn't talking about coverage, corner cases and so on, but more about how a single "logical" test can result in a bunch of "atomic" tests.
To make an exageration, suppose I've some function result that I have to check against the string "ciao a tutti":
my $result = function_under_test();
my $expected = "ciao a tutti";
Now, I can take the direct path:
is($result, $expected, "strings are equal");
But I can go much deeper:
my @result = split //, $result;
my @expected = split //, $expected;
is(scalar(@result), scalar(@expected), "length match");
for (my $i = 0; $i < @expected; ++$i) {
is($result[$i], $expected[$i], "$i-th char match");
}
I repeat: this is an exageration, I'm not saying that I'm doing my tests this way. Nonetheless, I sometimes feel that maybe a more compact test (like the first) would do equally good as the bloated one.
Flavio (perl -e "print(scalar(reverse('ti.xittelop@oivalf')))")
Don't fool yourself.
|