Quoting Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I would prefer it if people would stop associating Test::More with "testing using .t files". Test::More is a simple collection of testing functions. How you use it is not restricted by the module. Test::Inline and Test::Class both use Test::More for their baseline testing functions.
I've seen too many "which technique should I use, X or Y?" discussions lately. Testing modules and techniques are additive, you don't have to choose between one or the other exclusively.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my personal frustration with Test::More is not that it is hard to use in a module fashion, or overly dependant on .t files.
My main gripe is that the infrastructure for it is less OO friendly. The
example with the HTML output was awesome......until i looked at how it was
done. The inability to get a data structure back for the test results is very,
very frustrating.
Don't get me wrong. I love Test::More. The variety of assertion functions
makes for extremely readable tests. What we are lacking that Xunit style
frameworks provide is a nice, simple way to deal with the results of those
assertions. Printing to STDERR/STDOUT, hijacking those and pretty printing the
results is simply not enough in all cases. It is awesome in some cases. Just
not all.
sorry for the rant. I have seen an RT request for at least a data structure returned for results. any movement on that?
-jason gessner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]