I'm off. I'll check for further answers tomorrow. Thanks a lot =)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:09 PM, pierre masci <piemas25@...> wrote: Smart ! I thought that Test::Class was mostly used to inherits unit-tests
from a class into its subclasses. And overload some of them when
needed. But you're right, it could also enable to subclass tests. I will
give it a go. I sounds a bit overkill for most cases, though.
The "module of its own" containing played_with() is what i was also
saying: I just used the word "package" instead of "module".
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
Or, a non-OO alternative would be to put played_with in a module of its
own
and call it from each different test module. That might be simpler to
start, but you should still check out Test:Class, because it is closer to
what we do in other languages for TDD.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
wrote:
You can subclass your tests. Nothing wrong with that. Check this out:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:54 AM, pierre masci <piemas25@...> wrote:
**
Nope, i don't want to know about bits inside of $game.
I'm just trying to avoid to have to copy-paste played_with() in each
test
file.
Maybe i should just have a package in my unit-test folder, where i
declare
such functions.
Thank you for you help :o)
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
wrote:
P.S. the ONLY reason I would put played_with in a subclass of $game
is
if
it needed to know about private bits inside of $game. However,
actually
hiding members in Perl 5 turns out to be nearly impossible. So, that can't
be why, right?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
My perl is a tad rusty, but I would recommend you just keep the
played_with() sub in the test. The only difference is you'd have to
call
it
differently:
played_with($game, @rolls);
Subclassing $game just so that the test convenience method looks
like
a
member seems silly. Especially since the implementation would be identical
(The instance is the first argument to a method call the -> is
syntactic
sugar in Perl 5.x)
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:40 AM, pierre masci <piemas25@...
wrote:
**
I'm learning Perl and TDD.
I'm thinking both about methods that will "run a fairly similar
part
of
several test cases",
and about methods who will be tests by themself : they will
contain
assertions.
As a simple example, the Bowling-Game kata :
the exercise consists in building a Bowling-Game class,
which will calculate the score of a player, based on the number of
pins
knocked at each roll.
For many tests, i need to do :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
foreach my $pins_knocked ( @rolls ) {
$game->rolled($pins_knocked);
}
my $result = $game->score();
cmp_ok($result, '==', $expected_score, # Describe your test here
);
}
I like to refactor this into :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
my $result = $game->played_with(@rolls)
->score();
cmp_ok($result, '==', $expected_score, # Describe your test here
);
}
played_with() is the type of sugar function that i want to create.
The other case can can be illustrated with the the
calculates_correct_score_with() sugar function which would
directly
replace
the above code by :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
$game->calculates_correct_score_with(@rolls, $expected_score);
}
What do you think ?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...
wrote:
There are a number of reasons you might feel inclined to make a "testable"
subclass. Most of the time there is actually a simpler way to do
it.
To
help I'd need to understand why you are doing it. Could you
explain
what
these "sugar methods" do?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:06 AM, pierre masci <
piemas25@...
wrote:
**
Is it a good or bad idea to subclass the Vehicule class with
the
Vehicule_ForTests class,
which would contain all the "sugar" methods that i use to test
the
Vehicule
class ?
It seems good, to not add useless methods to the public API...
but one could say that i can obtain the same result by
starting
my
"sugar
for tests" methods with "_T" for instance.
It still feels nice to have these functions in a separate
place.
Could it be dangerous or uncomfortable, too ?
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
