diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'upstream/archlinux/man3/Test.3perl')
| -rw-r--r-- | upstream/archlinux/man3/Test.3perl | 587 |
1 files changed, 587 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/upstream/archlinux/man3/Test.3perl b/upstream/archlinux/man3/Test.3perl new file mode 100644 index 00000000..feadbe9b --- /dev/null +++ b/upstream/archlinux/man3/Test.3perl @@ -0,0 +1,587 @@ +.\" -*- mode: troff; coding: utf-8 -*- +.\" Automatically generated by Pod::Man 5.01 (Pod::Simple 3.43) +.\" +.\" Standard preamble: +.\" ======================================================================== +.de Sp \" Vertical space (when we can't use .PP) +.if t .sp .5v +.if n .sp +.. +.de Vb \" Begin verbatim text +.ft CW +.nf +.ne \\$1 +.. +.de Ve \" End verbatim text +.ft R +.fi +.. +.\" \*(C` and \*(C' are quotes in nroff, nothing in troff, for use with C<>. +.ie n \{\ +. ds C` "" +. ds C' "" +'br\} +.el\{\ +. ds C` +. ds C' +'br\} +.\" +.\" Escape single quotes in literal strings from groff's Unicode transform. +.ie \n(.g .ds Aq \(aq +.el .ds Aq ' +.\" +.\" If the F register is >0, we'll generate index entries on stderr for +.\" titles (.TH), headers (.SH), subsections (.SS), items (.Ip), and index +.\" entries marked with X<> in POD. Of course, you'll have to process the +.\" output yourself in some meaningful fashion. +.\" +.\" Avoid warning from groff about undefined register 'F'. +.de IX +.. +.nr rF 0 +.if \n(.g .if rF .nr rF 1 +.if (\n(rF:(\n(.g==0)) \{\ +. if \nF \{\ +. de IX +. tm Index:\\$1\t\\n%\t"\\$2" +.. +. if !\nF==2 \{\ +. nr % 0 +. nr F 2 +. \} +. \} +.\} +.rr rF +.\" ======================================================================== +.\" +.IX Title "Test 3perl" +.TH Test 3perl 2024-02-11 "perl v5.38.2" "Perl Programmers Reference Guide" +.\" For nroff, turn off justification. Always turn off hyphenation; it makes +.\" way too many mistakes in technical documents. +.if n .ad l +.nh +.SH NAME +Test \- provides a simple framework for writing test scripts +.SH SYNOPSIS +.IX Header "SYNOPSIS" +.Vb 2 +\& use strict; +\& use Test; +\& +\& # use a BEGIN block so we print our plan before MyModule is loaded +\& BEGIN { plan tests => 14, todo => [3,4] } +\& +\& # load your module... +\& use MyModule; +\& +\& # Helpful notes. All note\-lines must start with a "#". +\& print "# I\*(Aqm testing MyModule version $MyModule::VERSION\en"; +\& +\& ok(0); # failure +\& ok(1); # success +\& +\& ok(0); # ok, expected failure (see todo list, above) +\& ok(1); # surprise success! +\& +\& ok(0,1); # failure: \*(Aq0\*(Aq ne \*(Aq1\*(Aq +\& ok(\*(Aqbroke\*(Aq,\*(Aqfixed\*(Aq); # failure: \*(Aqbroke\*(Aq ne \*(Aqfixed\*(Aq +\& ok(\*(Aqfixed\*(Aq,\*(Aqfixed\*(Aq); # success: \*(Aqfixed\*(Aq eq \*(Aqfixed\*(Aq +\& ok(\*(Aqfixed\*(Aq,qr/x/); # success: \*(Aqfixed\*(Aq =~ qr/x/ +\& +\& ok(sub { 1+1 }, 2); # success: \*(Aq2\*(Aq eq \*(Aq2\*(Aq +\& ok(sub { 1+1 }, 3); # failure: \*(Aq2\*(Aq ne \*(Aq3\*(Aq +\& +\& my @list = (0,0); +\& ok @list, 3, "\e@list=".join(\*(Aq,\*(Aq,@list); #extra notes +\& ok \*(Aqsegmentation fault\*(Aq, \*(Aq/(?i)success/\*(Aq; #regex match +\& +\& skip( +\& $^O =~ m/MSWin/ ? "Skip if MSWin" : 0, # whether to skip +\& $foo, $bar # arguments just like for ok(...) +\& ); +\& skip( +\& $^O =~ m/MSWin/ ? 0 : "Skip unless MSWin", # whether to skip +\& $foo, $bar # arguments just like for ok(...) +\& ); +.Ve +.SH DESCRIPTION +.IX Header "DESCRIPTION" +This module simplifies the task of writing test files for Perl modules, +such that their output is in the format that +Test::Harness expects to see. +.SH "QUICK START GUIDE" +.IX Header "QUICK START GUIDE" +To write a test for your new (and probably not even done) module, create +a new file called \fIt/test.t\fR (in a new \fIt\fR directory). If you have +multiple test files, to test the "foo", "bar", and "baz" feature sets, +then feel free to call your files \fIt/foo.t\fR, \fIt/bar.t\fR, and +\&\fIt/baz.t\fR +.SS Functions +.IX Subsection "Functions" +This module defines three public functions, \f(CWplan(...)\fR, \f(CWok(...)\fR, +and \f(CWskip(...)\fR. By default, all three are exported by +the \f(CW\*(C`use Test;\*(C'\fR statement. +.ie n .IP plan(...) 4 +.el .IP \f(CWplan(...)\fR 4 +.IX Item "plan(...)" +.Vb 1 +\& BEGIN { plan %theplan; } +.Ve +.Sp +This should be the first thing you call in your test script. It +declares your testing plan, how many there will be, if any of them +should be allowed to fail, and so on. +.Sp +Typical usage is just: +.Sp +.Vb 2 +\& use Test; +\& BEGIN { plan tests => 23 } +.Ve +.Sp +These are the things that you can put in the parameters to plan: +.RS 4 +.ie n .IP """tests => \fInumber\fR""" 4 +.el .IP "\f(CWtests => \fR\f(CInumber\fR\f(CW\fR" 4 +.IX Item "tests => number" +The number of tests in your script. +This means all \fBok()\fR and \fBskip()\fR calls. +.ie n .IP """todo => [\fI1,5,14\fR]""" 4 +.el .IP "\f(CWtodo => [\fR\f(CI1,5,14\fR\f(CW]\fR" 4 +.IX Item "todo => [1,5,14]" +A reference to a list of tests which are allowed to fail. +See "TODO TESTS". +.ie n .IP """onfail => sub { ... }""" 4 +.el .IP "\f(CWonfail => sub { ... }\fR" 4 +.IX Item "onfail => sub { ... }" +.PD 0 +.ie n .IP """onfail => \e&some_sub""" 4 +.el .IP "\f(CWonfail => \e&some_sub\fR" 4 +.IX Item "onfail => &some_sub" +.PD +A subroutine reference to be run at the end of the test script, if +any of the tests fail. See "ONFAIL". +.RE +.RS 4 +.Sp +You must call \f(CWplan(...)\fR once and only once. You should call it +in a \f(CW\*(C`BEGIN {...}\*(C'\fR block, like so: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& BEGIN { plan tests => 23 } +.Ve +.RE +.ie n .IP ok(...) 4 +.el .IP \f(CWok(...)\fR 4 +.IX Item "ok(...)" +.Vb 3 +\& ok(1 + 1 == 2); +\& ok($have, $expect); +\& ok($have, $expect, $diagnostics); +.Ve +.Sp +This function is the reason for \f(CW\*(C`Test\*(C'\fR's existence. It's +the basic function that +handles printing "\f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR" or "\f(CW\*(C`not ok\*(C'\fR", along with the +current test number. (That's what \f(CW\*(C`Test::Harness\*(C'\fR wants to see.) +.Sp +In its most basic usage, \f(CWok(...)\fR simply takes a single scalar +expression. If its value is true, the test passes; if false, +the test fails. Examples: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& # Examples of ok(scalar) +\& +\& ok( 1 + 1 == 2 ); # ok if 1 + 1 == 2 +\& ok( $foo =~ /bar/ ); # ok if $foo contains \*(Aqbar\*(Aq +\& ok( baz($x + $y) eq \*(AqArmondo\*(Aq ); # ok if baz($x + $y) returns +\& # \*(AqArmondo\*(Aq +\& ok( @a == @b ); # ok if @a and @b are the same +\& # length +.Ve +.Sp +The expression is evaluated in scalar context. So the following will +work: +.Sp +.Vb 4 +\& ok( @stuff ); # ok if @stuff has any +\& # elements +\& ok( !grep !defined $_, @stuff ); # ok if everything in @stuff +\& # is defined. +.Ve +.Sp +A special case is if the expression is a subroutine reference (in either +\&\f(CW\*(C`sub {...}\*(C'\fR syntax or \f(CW\*(C`\e&foo\*(C'\fR syntax). In +that case, it is executed and its value (true or false) determines if +the test passes or fails. For example, +.Sp +.Vb 5 +\& ok( sub { # See whether sleep works at least passably +\& my $start_time = time; +\& sleep 5; +\& time() \- $start_time >= 4 +\& }); +.Ve +.Sp +In its two-argument form, \f(CW\*(C`ok(\fR\f(CIarg1\fR\f(CW, \fR\f(CIarg2\fR\f(CW)\*(C'\fR compares the two +scalar values to see if they match. They match if both are undefined, +or if \fIarg2\fR is a regex that matches \fIarg1\fR, or if they compare equal +with \f(CW\*(C`eq\*(C'\fR. +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& # Example of ok(scalar, scalar) +\& +\& ok( "this", "that" ); # not ok, \*(Aqthis\*(Aq ne \*(Aqthat\*(Aq +\& ok( "", undef ); # not ok, "" is defined +.Ve +.Sp +The second argument is considered a regex if it is either a regex +object or a string that looks like a regex. Regex objects are +constructed with the qr// operator in recent versions of perl. A +string is considered to look like a regex if its first and last +characters are "/", or if the first character is "m" +and its second and last characters are both the +same non-alphanumeric non-whitespace character. These regexp +.Sp +Regex examples: +.Sp +.Vb 4 +\& ok( \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq, \*(Aq/Jaff/\*(Aq ); # ok, \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq =~ /Jaff/ +\& ok( \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq, \*(Aqm|Jaff|\*(Aq ); # ok, \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq =~ m|Jaff| +\& ok( \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq, qr/Jaff/ ); # ok, \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq =~ qr/Jaff/; +\& ok( \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq, \*(Aq/(?i)jaff/ ); # ok, \*(AqJaffO\*(Aq =~ /jaff/i; +.Ve +.Sp +If either (or both!) is a subroutine reference, it is run and used +as the value for comparing. For example: +.Sp +.Vb 10 +\& ok sub { +\& open(OUT, \*(Aq>\*(Aq, \*(Aqx.dat\*(Aq) || die $!; +\& print OUT "\ex{e000}"; +\& close OUT; +\& my $bytecount = \-s \*(Aqx.dat\*(Aq; +\& unlink \*(Aqx.dat\*(Aq or warn "Can\*(Aqt unlink : $!"; +\& return $bytecount; +\& }, +\& 4 +\& ; +.Ve +.Sp +The above test passes two values to \f(CW\*(C`ok(arg1, arg2)\*(C'\fR \-\- the first +a coderef, and the second is the number 4. Before \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR compares them, +it calls the coderef, and uses its return value as the real value of +this parameter. Assuming that \f(CW$bytecount\fR returns 4, \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR ends up +testing \f(CW\*(C`4 eq 4\*(C'\fR. Since that's true, this test passes. +.Sp +Finally, you can append an optional third argument, in +\&\f(CW\*(C`ok(\fR\f(CIarg1\fR\f(CW,\fR\f(CIarg2\fR\f(CW, \fR\f(CInote\fR\f(CW)\*(C'\fR, where \fInote\fR is a string value that +will be printed if the test fails. This should be some useful +information about the test, pertaining to why it failed, and/or +a description of the test. For example: +.Sp +.Vb 4 +\& ok( grep($_ eq \*(Aqsomething unique\*(Aq, @stuff), 1, +\& "Something that should be unique isn\*(Aqt!\en". +\& \*(Aq@stuff = \*(Aq.join \*(Aq, \*(Aq, @stuff +\& ); +.Ve +.Sp +Unfortunately, a note cannot be used with the single argument +style of \f(CWok()\fR. That is, if you try \f(CW\*(C`ok(\fR\f(CIarg1\fR\f(CW, \fR\f(CInote\fR\f(CW)\*(C'\fR, then +\&\f(CW\*(C`Test\*(C'\fR will interpret this as \f(CW\*(C`ok(\fR\f(CIarg1\fR\f(CW, \fR\f(CIarg2\fR\f(CW)\*(C'\fR, and probably +end up testing \f(CW\*(C`\fR\f(CIarg1\fR\f(CW eq \fR\f(CIarg2\fR\f(CW\*(C'\fR \-\- and that's not what you want! +.Sp +All of the above special cases can occasionally cause some +problems. See "BUGS and CAVEATS". +.ie n .IP """skip(\fIskip_if_true\fR, \fIargs...\fR)""" 4 +.el .IP "\f(CWskip(\fR\f(CIskip_if_true\fR\f(CW, \fR\f(CIargs...\fR\f(CW)\fR" 4 +.IX Item "skip(skip_if_true, args...)" +This is used for tests that under some conditions can be skipped. It's +basically equivalent to: +.Sp +.Vb 5 +\& if( $skip_if_true ) { +\& ok(1); +\& } else { +\& ok( args... ); +\& } +.Ve +.Sp +\&...except that the \f(CWok(1)\fR emits not just "\f(CW\*(C`ok \fR\f(CItestnum\fR\f(CW\*(C'\fR" but +actually "\f(CW\*(C`ok \fR\f(CItestnum\fR\f(CW # \fR\f(CIskip_if_true_value\fR\f(CW\*(C'\fR". +.Sp +The arguments after the \fIskip_if_true\fR are what is fed to \f(CWok(...)\fR if +this test isn't skipped. +.Sp +Example usage: +.Sp +.Vb 2 +\& my $if_MSWin = +\& $^O =~ m/MSWin/ ? \*(AqSkip if under MSWin\*(Aq : \*(Aq\*(Aq; +\& +\& # A test to be skipped if under MSWin (i.e., run except under +\& # MSWin) +\& skip($if_MSWin, thing($foo), thing($bar) ); +.Ve +.Sp +Or, going the other way: +.Sp +.Vb 2 +\& my $unless_MSWin = +\& $^O =~ m/MSWin/ ? \*(Aq\*(Aq : \*(AqSkip unless under MSWin\*(Aq; +\& +\& # A test to be skipped unless under MSWin (i.e., run only under +\& # MSWin) +\& skip($unless_MSWin, thing($foo), thing($bar) ); +.Ve +.Sp +The tricky thing to remember is that the first parameter is true if +you want to \fIskip\fR the test, not \fIrun\fR it; and it also doubles as a +note about why it's being skipped. So in the first codeblock above, read +the code as "skip if MSWin \-\- (otherwise) test whether \f(CWthing($foo)\fR is +\&\f(CWthing($bar)\fR" or for the second case, "skip unless MSWin...". +.Sp +Also, when your \fIskip_if_reason\fR string is true, it really should (for +backwards compatibility with older Test.pm versions) start with the +string "Skip", as shown in the above examples. +.Sp +Note that in the above cases, \f(CWthing($foo)\fR and \f(CWthing($bar)\fR +\&\fIare\fR evaluated \-\- but as long as the \f(CW\*(C`skip_if_true\*(C'\fR is true, +then we \f(CWskip(...)\fR just tosses out their value (i.e., not +bothering to treat them like values to \f(CWok(...)\fR. But if +you need to \fInot\fR eval the arguments when skipping the +test, use +this format: +.Sp +.Vb 7 +\& skip( $unless_MSWin, +\& sub { +\& # This code returns true if the test passes. +\& # (But it doesn\*(Aqt even get called if the test is skipped.) +\& thing($foo) eq thing($bar) +\& } +\& ); +.Ve +.Sp +or even this, which is basically equivalent: +.Sp +.Vb 3 +\& skip( $unless_MSWin, +\& sub { thing($foo) }, sub { thing($bar) } +\& ); +.Ve +.Sp +That is, both are like this: +.Sp +.Vb 7 +\& if( $unless_MSWin ) { +\& ok(1); # but it actually appends "# $unless_MSWin" +\& # so that Test::Harness can tell it\*(Aqs a skip +\& } else { +\& # Not skipping, so actually call and evaluate... +\& ok( sub { thing($foo) }, sub { thing($bar) } ); +\& } +.Ve +.SH "TEST TYPES" +.IX Header "TEST TYPES" +.IP \(bu 4 +NORMAL TESTS +.Sp +These tests are expected to succeed. Usually, most or all of your tests +are in this category. If a normal test doesn't succeed, then that +means that something is \fIwrong\fR. +.IP \(bu 4 +SKIPPED TESTS +.Sp +The \f(CWskip(...)\fR function is for tests that might or might not be +possible to run, depending +on the availability of platform-specific features. The first argument +should evaluate to true (think "yes, please skip") if the required +feature is \fInot\fR available. After the first argument, \f(CWskip(...)\fR works +exactly the same way as \f(CWok(...)\fR does. +.IP \(bu 4 +TODO TESTS +.Sp +TODO tests are designed for maintaining an \fBexecutable TODO list\fR. +These tests are \fIexpected to fail.\fR If a TODO test does succeed, +then the feature in question shouldn't be on the TODO list, now +should it? +.Sp +Packages should NOT be released with succeeding TODO tests. As soon +as a TODO test starts working, it should be promoted to a normal test, +and the newly working feature should be documented in the release +notes or in the change log. +.SH ONFAIL +.IX Header "ONFAIL" +.Vb 1 +\& BEGIN { plan test => 4, onfail => sub { warn "CALL 911!" } } +.Ve +.PP +Although test failures should be enough, extra diagnostics can be +triggered at the end of a test run. \f(CW\*(C`onfail\*(C'\fR is passed an array ref +of hash refs that describe each test failure. Each hash will contain +at least the following fields: \f(CW\*(C`package\*(C'\fR, \f(CW\*(C`repetition\*(C'\fR, and +\&\f(CW\*(C`result\*(C'\fR. (You shouldn't rely on any other fields being present.) If the test +had an expected value or a diagnostic (or "note") string, these will also be +included. +.PP +The \fIoptional\fR \f(CW\*(C`onfail\*(C'\fR hook might be used simply to print out the +version of your package and/or how to report problems. It might also +be used to generate extremely sophisticated diagnostics for a +particularly bizarre test failure. However it's not a panacea. Core +dumps or other unrecoverable errors prevent the \f(CW\*(C`onfail\*(C'\fR hook from +running. (It is run inside an \f(CW\*(C`END\*(C'\fR block.) Besides, \f(CW\*(C`onfail\*(C'\fR is +probably over-kill in most cases. (Your test code should be simpler +than the code it is testing, yes?) +.SH "BUGS and CAVEATS" +.IX Header "BUGS and CAVEATS" +.IP \(bu 4 +\&\f(CWok(...)\fR's special handing of strings which look like they might be +regexes can also cause unexpected behavior. An innocent: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok( $fileglob, \*(Aq/path/to/some/*stuff/\*(Aq ); +.Ve +.Sp +will fail, since Test.pm considers the second argument to be a regex! +The best bet is to use the one-argument form: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok( $fileglob eq \*(Aq/path/to/some/*stuff/\*(Aq ); +.Ve +.IP \(bu 4 +\&\f(CWok(...)\fR's use of string \f(CW\*(C`eq\*(C'\fR can sometimes cause odd problems +when comparing +numbers, especially if you're casting a string to a number: +.Sp +.Vb 2 +\& $foo = "1.0"; +\& ok( $foo, 1 ); # not ok, "1.0" ne 1 +.Ve +.Sp +Your best bet is to use the single argument form: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok( $foo == 1 ); # ok "1.0" == 1 +.Ve +.IP \(bu 4 +As you may have inferred from the above documentation and examples, +\&\f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR's prototype is \f(CW\*(C`($;$$)\*(C'\fR (and, incidentally, \f(CW\*(C`skip\*(C'\fR's is +\&\f(CW\*(C`($;$$$)\*(C'\fR). This means, for example, that you can do \f(CW\*(C`ok @foo, @bar\*(C'\fR +to compare the \fIsize\fR of the two arrays. But don't be fooled into +thinking that \f(CW\*(C`ok @foo, @bar\*(C'\fR means a comparison of the contents of two +arrays \-\- you're comparing \fIjust\fR the number of elements of each. It's +so easy to make that mistake in reading \f(CW\*(C`ok @foo, @bar\*(C'\fR that you might +want to be very explicit about it, and instead write \f(CWok scalar(@foo), +scalar(@bar)\fR. +.IP \(bu 4 +This almost definitely doesn't do what you expect: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok $thingy\->can(\*(Aqsome_method\*(Aq); +.Ve +.Sp +Why? Because \f(CW\*(C`can\*(C'\fR returns a coderef to mean "yes it can (and the +method is this...)", and then \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR sees a coderef and thinks you're +passing a function that you want it to call and consider the truth of +the result of! I.e., just like: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok $thingy\->can(\*(Aqsome_method\*(Aq)\->(); +.Ve +.Sp +What you probably want instead is this: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& ok $thingy\->can(\*(Aqsome_method\*(Aq) && 1; +.Ve +.Sp +If the \f(CW\*(C`can\*(C'\fR returns false, then that is passed to \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR. If it +returns true, then the larger expression \f(CW\*(C`$thingy\->can(\*(Aqsome_method\*(Aq)\ &&\ 1\*(C'\fR returns 1, which \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR sees as +a simple signal of success, as you would expect. +.IP \(bu 4 +The syntax for \f(CW\*(C`skip\*(C'\fR is about the only way it can be, but it's still +quite confusing. Just start with the above examples and you'll +be okay. +.Sp +Moreover, users may expect this: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& skip $unless_mswin, foo($bar), baz($quux); +.Ve +.Sp +to not evaluate \f(CWfoo($bar)\fR and \f(CWbaz($quux)\fR when the test is being +skipped. But in reality, they \fIare\fR evaluated, but \f(CW\*(C`skip\*(C'\fR just won't +bother comparing them if \f(CW$unless_mswin\fR is true. +.Sp +You could do this: +.Sp +.Vb 1 +\& skip $unless_mswin, sub{foo($bar)}, sub{baz($quux)}; +.Ve +.Sp +But that's not terribly pretty. You may find it simpler or clearer in +the long run to just do things like this: +.Sp +.Vb 10 +\& if( $^O =~ m/MSWin/ ) { +\& print "# Yay, we\*(Aqre under $^O\en"; +\& ok foo($bar), baz($quux); +\& ok thing($whatever), baz($stuff); +\& ok blorp($quux, $whatever); +\& ok foo($barzbarz), thang($quux); +\& } else { +\& print "# Feh, we\*(Aqre under $^O. Watch me skip some tests...\en"; +\& for(1 .. 4) { skip "Skip unless under MSWin" } +\& } +.Ve +.Sp +But be quite sure that \f(CW\*(C`ok\*(C'\fR is called exactly as many times in the +first block as \f(CW\*(C`skip\*(C'\fR is called in the second block. +.SH ENVIRONMENT +.IX Header "ENVIRONMENT" +If \f(CW\*(C`PERL_TEST_DIFF\*(C'\fR environment variable is set, it will be used as a +command for comparing unexpected multiline results. If you have GNU +diff installed, you might want to set \f(CW\*(C`PERL_TEST_DIFF\*(C'\fR to \f(CW\*(C`diff \-u\*(C'\fR. +If you don't have a suitable program, you might install the +\&\f(CW\*(C`Text::Diff\*(C'\fR module and then set \f(CW\*(C`PERL_TEST_DIFF\*(C'\fR to be \f(CW\*(C`perl +\&\-MText::Diff \-e \*(Aqprint diff(@ARGV)\*(Aq\*(C'\fR. If \f(CW\*(C`PERL_TEST_DIFF\*(C'\fR isn't set +but the \f(CW\*(C`Algorithm::Diff\*(C'\fR module is available, then it will be used +to show the differences in multiline results. +.SH NOTE +.IX Header "NOTE" +A past developer of this module once said that it was no longer being +actively developed. However, rumors of its demise were greatly +exaggerated. Feedback and suggestions are quite welcome. +.PP +Be aware that the main value of this module is its simplicity. Note +that there are already more ambitious modules out there, such as +Test::More and Test::Unit. +.PP +Some earlier versions of this module had docs with some confusing +typos in the description of \f(CWskip(...)\fR. +.SH "SEE ALSO" +.IX Header "SEE ALSO" +Test::Harness +.PP +Test::Simple, Test::More, Devel::Cover +.PP +Test::Builder for building your own testing library. +.PP +Test::Unit is an interesting XUnit-style testing library. +.PP +Test::Inline lets you embed tests in code. +.SH AUTHOR +.IX Header "AUTHOR" +Copyright (c) 1998\-2000 Joshua Nathaniel Pritikin. +.PP +Copyright (c) 2001\-2002 Michael G. Schwern. +.PP +Copyright (c) 2002\-2004 Sean M. Burke. +.PP +Current maintainer: Jesse Vincent. <jesse@bestpractical.com> +.PP +This package is free software and is provided "as is" without express +or implied warranty. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified +under the same terms as Perl itself. |