chromatic wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 09:45:53 Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > That looks reasonable, but why does the code use prove in the first place, and > not Test::Harness::runtests()? > And why not? >From 'perldoc Test::Harness': "STOP! If all you want to do is write a test script, consider using Test::Simple." ... and ... "The prove utility is a thin wrapper around Test::Harness." >From these I infer: (1) Cet. par., use Test::Simple or Test::More. (2) When that's not appropriate, use 'prove'. At YAPC::NA::2004 in Buffalo, Andy Lester gave a lightning talk which boiled down to: "Use 'prove'." Naturally, I did what Andy told me. I've done a lot of testing since then, have written a lot of tests, and have given talks on my adventures in testing. In each of those talks I have repeated the message: use 'prove'. No one has ever contradicted me on that. In particular, no one has ever said, "You should be using Test::Harness::runtests() instead." In fact, until I ran the perldoc just now, I mostly associated runtests() with discussion of the upcoming Test::Harness 3.0 on the qa list. And since, at particle's request (http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42690), I added the --test option(s) back in May, they've always run on 'prove'. Until today, no one complained. Of course, the other Andy (or one of the other Andys) -- Andy Dougherty -- has the knack of finding bugs in my tests that no one else does. So I'll give his patch serious consideration. But if you think Test::Harness::runtests() is superior to 'prove' in this case ... well, as the first Andy would say, "Patches welcome." kid51
