Re: Readd use of TAP subtests

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:

> On 12/8/21 09:08, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>>
>> Either way, I think we should be switching tests to done_testing()
>> whenever it would otherwise have to adjust the test count, to avoid
>> having to do that again and again and again going forward.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure. I don't think its necessarily a bad idea to have to
> declare how many tests you're going to run. I appreciate it gets hard in
> some cases, which is why we have now insisted on a Test::More version
> that supports subtests. I suppose we could just take the attitude that
> we're happy with however many tests it actually runs, and as long as
> they all pass we're good. It just seems slightly sloppy.

The point of done_testing() is to additionally assert that the test
script ran to completion, so you don't get silent failures if something
should end up calling exit(0) prematurely (a non-zero exit status is
considered a failure by the test harness).

The only cases where an explicit plan adds value is if you're running
tests in a loop and care about the number of iterations, or have a
callback with a test inside that you want to make sure gets called. For
these, it's better to explicitly assert that the list you're iterating
over is of the right length, or increment a counter in the loop or
callback and assert that it has the expected value. This has the added
benefit of the failure being coming from the relevant place and having a
helpful description, rather than a plan mismatch at the end which you
then have to hunt down the cause of.

- ilmari