[Bioperl-l] New testing base: BioperlTest.pm
Sendu Bala
bix at sendu.me.uk
Mon Jun 25 13:45:23 UTC 2007
Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> I should think the benefits are obvious, especially for the output
>> files, which thanks to inconsistency of using END blocks correctly or at
>> all, leaves some output data behind on occasion.
>
> Sounds fine by me, though it's a lot of work. BTW, did we ever decide
> whether to finish up with Test::More conversion? I haven't heard back
> yet; let me know what you want to do.
I'm doing the remaining Test::More conversions at the same time.
> Do test_input_file() and test_input_file() handle directory structures
> in an OS-safe way like catfile()? For instance, I plan on adding test
> data to a new directory similar to Bio::Graphics (t/data/eutil) to
> prevent cluttering of the t/data directory. I could use
> '$obj->new(-file => test_input_file('/eutil/input.xml'))' if the base
> directory is 't/data' but that may not be cross-platform compatible with
> win32 file systems, which may still expect something like
> 't\data\eutil\input.xml'.
Its platform-independent, currently implemented using File::Spec. So
you'll say:
$obj->new(-file => test_input_file('eutil', 'input.xml'));
Its all documented in the POD of BioperlTest.
More information about the Bioperl-l
mailing list