Re: [SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.2.9-52-g288a108

[Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>]

Russ Allbery wrote:

> Raphael Geissert writes:
> 
>> I'm a bit hesitant about how correct is to move the lab setup test to
>> a t/scripts test; since it would be more appropriate as a shell script
>> because it is basically just a set of external commands being run.
> 
> It won't be if we really start testing something rather than just being
> sure that lintian returns a non-zero exit status, like being sure that
> the right files are created and that directories in the lab are removed
> properly.

Maybe it is time to move that part of the code into a module? it would be
easier to test it that way (not that I dislike black-box testing, but in
this case it would be better to test it from the ground).

> Plus, writing it as a Perl script means that we can use the 
> Test::More functions to check things and report status properly with all
> the nice infrastructure that Test::More provides.
> 

Sure.

By the way, although I guess you have already read about TDD, I have found
Kent Beck's "Test-driven development - by example" a very nice reading; it
changed my POV.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net