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

Hi Mark,

>________________________________
> From: Mark Stosberg <[email protected]>


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

You're welcome. They're inferred at the suite and class level, but with an implicit "done_testing()" for each method. It's not perfect, but there alternatives seemed a touch worse.

>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.

Test::Class::Moose is explicitly coupled with Moose, so having a "use Moose" line is both redundant and error-prone. If it's required and you forget it, oops. I've given you a source of bugs you didn't need. If it's not required, why write it?

>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?


I think "extends" might be better. Good call.

I don't use standard inheritance because the various solutions for that don't allow for both inheriting from a class and exporting functions (in this case, ok(), is(), eq_or_diff(), and so on).

Cheers,
Ovid
--
Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/
Buy my book - http://bit.ly/beginning_perl
Buy my other book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Live and work overseas - http://www.overseas-exile.com/