Re: Anyone want Test::Class::Moose?

On 12/15/2012 05:37 PM, Ovid wrote:
> Hi Justin,
> 
> This is something I've wondered as well. Several times when people asked me about using Test::Class with Moose I pointed them to Test::Able, though I confess I never used that code. Invariably they would not choose it. I think what's going on is the interface. It looks "different" and that's possibly scaring people off. The interface for Test::Class::Moose looks very similar to Test::Class and that might make for easier adoption if I ever do enough to get it out of alpha.
> 
> Please note that I'm not saying that what I've written is better! However, the comfort level of the Test::Class::Moose interface may be appealing to some.

There's also Test::Sweet-- another Moose/Test::Class mashup which I
haven't developed an opinion of: https://metacpan.org/module/Test::Sweet

I can see that one difference is that it uses Devel::Declare.

As I looked more at Test::Class::Moose, one thing I really like is that
plans are completely gone. Thank you.

Two questions:

1. About this: "use Test::Class::Moose;"

Why not standard inheritance to add Test::Class functionality?

It looke the rationale here is to save a line of boilerplate with the
"use Moose" line.

2.  About this syntax for extending  a test class:
  use Test::Class::Moose parent => 'TestsFor::Some::Class';

why not use standard inheritance in a class, and to extend a class using
test::Class? Or could you 'extends' in the import list here to look more
Moose-y?

    Mark