[Bioperl-l] Bioperl tests: Test, Test::Simple, Test::More?
mkiwala at watson.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 1 22:21:21 UTC 2006
Test::Class is nice. Unfortunately, it would introduce a dependency on a
non-standard perl module for anyone planning on running the tests, which
would be everyone installing Bioperl.
If we used Test::Class Bioperl would either have to force users who wish
to run tests during installation to have Test::Class installed, or
Bioperl would need a separate set of tests based on Test::More for the
purpose of running during installation.
I'm not sure if the benefits of using Test::Class outweigh the costs in
this instance, but it is a nice testing framework.
Chris Fields wrote:
> Does anyone have suggestions for a test suite other than the regular ol'
> Test.pm? I would like something that's a bit more flexible for Bioperl but
> won't require a ton of revisions for current tests.
> Jason had suggested moving tests over to using Test::More for it's
> flexibility (and it's a bit easier to document with messages). I think
> switching over to this makes sense, but there may be other options out there
> that I don't know about.
> I'm considering trying out Test::More for my EUtilities tests, but if anyone
> has suggestions I would be glad to hear them.
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l