Re: HOWTO: Writing Perl6 Tests (was: Project Start: Section 1)

"Andrew Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote
> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
> assert().  If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e. Test::More,
> Test::Harness, etc.)

I would argue that we should write our tests using perl6's standard
format -- and we need to define that format. There may be a good
argument for using the perl5 standards; but we should explore the
alternatives. "assert" is a generally accepted term: I'm not sure
why perl should be different.

> If your program can't do basic I/O it's probably pretty broken.  Even if
> we we're to only rely on the test modules, they also need to be able to
> communicate with the outside world.

My day-job is ASIC verification: in a previous job I tested
microprocessor cores. We generally found mechanisms to communicate
pass/fail without requiring any IO capability. A common method is to
use the programm counter -- if we execute the instruction at address
0x123456, then exit as a PASS; if we reach 0x654321, then fail. (we
used the assembler to get the addresses of specific pass/fail labels).

We don't need to go to these extremes for perl testing, because we have
an exit(int) capability. exit(0) means pass: anything else (including
timeout)
is a fail.

The fact that we don't need C<print> is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!


Dave.

--
Dave Whipp, Senior Verification Engineer,
Fast-Chip inc., 950 Kifer Rd, Sunnyvale, CA. 94086
tel: 408 523 8071; http://www.fast-chip.com
Opinions my own; statements of fact may be in error.