> The other concern I've had with our style of xUnit testing is that we're testing
> behavior, but not
> the actual data. With Test::More, we tested against a copy of the live database
> (when possible --
> but this definitely caused some issues) and we sometimes caught data problems that
> xU
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The xUnit style framework does a much better job of enforcing test
> isolation than Test::More does (but you have to remember that what
> Test::More thinks of as a test, xUnit thinks of as an assertion to be
> used *in* a test).
After working with xUn
