Re: Code coverage tools?

On Feb 2, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Noel Maddy wrote:

>>>> "Matt S Trout" <[email protected]> 02/02/08 8:28 AM >>>
>> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:57:45PM -0500, Noel Maddy wrote:
>>> I'm starting to work with Moose, and I'm really impressed
>>> with its design.
>>>
>>> However, I'm used to using Devel::Cover for code coverage,
>>> and it seems to skip code in Moose's attribute default coderefs.
>>
>> Not directly a solution, but if you use 'builder' instead of  
>> default (which
>> I pretty much always do) thenthe actual default logic becomes a  
>> method.
>
> Thanks, Matt. I had missed the 'builder' option on attributes.

Yes, builder was a fairly new addition, and honestly the docs need an  
overhaul because there are lots of new features which have been  
introduced which don't get their proper billing in the docs.

> I like that -- it puts the initialization code where it belongs,  
> rather than
> cluttering up the attribute definition.

I agree, anything more than trivial initializers should go in  
builder, that way your subclass can have a chance at it as well.

- Stevan