[Bioperl-l] Bioperl tests: Test, Test::Simple, Test::More?

[Michael Kiwala]

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
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>
>