Unit Test libraries, opinions

Sifmole has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I did a search on CPAN for Unit Testing libraries, and there are a bunch. I noticed one batch from a fellow monk Christian Lemburg (pardon me if I misspelled).

With the sheer number, I was curious if any of you monks had used any of these libraries; and what your experiences were?

Comment on Unit Test libraries, opinions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Unit Test libraries, opinions by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 11, 2001 at 19:52 UTC
Test::Unit will be immediately familiar if you've used JUnit. It's highly object oriented and works well if you use it as it's intended to be used. Test and Test::Harness have the advantage of being in the core distribution. They require slightly more initialization on your part, but they're not too difficult to use. jlp and I discussed this the other day, and he ended up writing 50 lines of code that did all of the testing we needed. It follows clemburg's Test::Unit framework, but it's limited to the bare bones of what we need. If you just want simple tests, it's very easy to use.	[reply]
Re: Unit Test libraries, opinions by Tyke (Pilgrim) on May 11, 2001 at 18:11 UTC
Excellent. I'm working on a project where application software is written in Java(ob-sob), and development tools in Perl. Christian's stuff allows us to have exactly the same development methodology between the two parts since it's based on JUnit which we use for unit-testing the Java stuff. It's possible to define tests to run in a clean environment that is reinitialised for each test progressively integrate new tests and test suites run either in batch or GUI with meaningful output in both cases (the TK implementation mirrors the JUnit swing implementation very well) make testing easy enough not to skip it! Well worth checking out	[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks