Re: Relying more on Mouse

>________________________________
> From: Michael G Schwern <[email protected]>
>
>On 2011.11.21 4:07 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
>> But then how often does one need to 'use Test::More'?  Not enough to
>> bother optimising it, I'd say.
>
>In every single .t file that gets run by just about everybody.
>
>By being THE testing framework, it places an upper bound on how fast anyone's
>tests can be.  10 .t files per second, no faster.  That sucks.
>
>
>> To take a real-world example, it occurs 182 times in our test suite at
>> work, a test suite that takes almost 2 hours to run in full.  Those
>> extra 182 * 0.07 == 13 seconds are of absolutely no importance at all.
>
>I run tests a lot while developing.  I can see they're slower without even
>benchmarking it.  You wouldn't think you'd notice 70 ms, but you do.
>
>I don't want to give anyone an excuse to not run tests often or not upgrade.


I have to agree with this. Test performance is an issue that people constantly hit. And aside from Test::Class/Test::Aggregate style solutions (I see to recall someone put out an alternative to Test::Aggregate?), individual tests in separate processes is the norm. 

For larger, "enterprisey" type systems, my experience shows that they generally have enough other issues that a tiny hit on Test::More won't matter, but when you add up all the tiny hits, it's death by a thousand cuts. Dave, you weren't on the PIPs team when I optimized their test suite, but it was those "thousand cuts" that I stripped away one by one to get an hour long test suite running in less than 15 minutes.

So yeah, this is a very important issue. If performance isn't dealt with, it's going to be a constant sore spot.

And Schwern: thanks for all of your good work in this area!

Cheers,
Ovid
--
Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/
Buy the book           - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog              - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/
Twitter                - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/