Re: DBIT prototype - feedback wanted

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:08:43AM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> because I’m a bit overloaded at the moment, please don’t misinterpret following as general reject or blame or something like that.
> 
> I waited with the answer until I had time to create an own sandbox and shoot a bit around.
> Seems now I have some bullet holes :D

:)

> Am 10.02.2014 um 00:18 schrieb Tim Bunce <[email protected]>:
> 
> > What's good?
> > What's bad?
> > What can be done better?
> > What's missing?
> > What's are the priorities now?
> 
> First: I like the general approach of separating of concerns. That’ll allows to reuse the idea of flexible environments.
> I tried it for my recent problem child MooX::Cmd (and extend some tests to MooX::Options cooperation).
> In principle, the "MooX::Options cooperation“ test case should be installed to be reused from Vincent when hacking on MX::O ...
> 
> So far so good - see https://github.com/perl5-dbi/DBI-Test/tree/master/sandbox/jens how I tried to reach those (more or less) simple goals.

I'll take a look later.

> My current sense of the entire stuff is:
> 
> 1) I now have a rough intention how all must have felt when seeing my first approach
> 2) There is one complexity exchanged for another one
>    ==> neither are good
> 3) To much implicit code - for having a test framework, I would prefer explicit code,
>    especially mix between coderefs (providers) and values (test cases/templates).
>    ==> Maybe having a Class::Tiny based API would improve (lazy attributes ftw ^^)

I'm not sure what you mean here Jens. Perhaps an explicit example of
what you're concerned about would help.


> 4) Probably a sandbox issue: Test::Database requires DBI -> Chicken Egg Problem

I suspect Test::Database will get split into two parts. (All DBIT really
needs at the moment is a module to read the Test::Database config file.)


> 5) Providers framework need also support for variations, combinations and
>    permutations - mixing gofer+pureperl works only for small lists (add S::S vs. Nano,
>    Gofer vs. DBD::Multiplex vs. DBD::Proxy ... (we don’t want to test Gofer via Multiplex,
>    do we?) ).

Gofer, Multiplex and Proxy are all proxies. I don't see a need to test
stacking multiple proxies on top of each other.

Beyond that I'm not sure what your concern is here. I don't see any
problem adding more combinations to the DBI providers. I plan to add
threads soon, for example.


> 6) I didn’t find the time to rewrite „write_test_file“ - but I think a nice template
>    as hacked in https://github.com/i-scream/libstatgrab/blob/master/tests/testlib/mk_run_tests.pl
>    would allow more flexibility.

For DBIT I don't see any need to rewrite write_test_file. Is there a need?

For any other use of Tumbler you can write a 'consumer' sub that fits your needs.

Tim.