Test::More - yet another framework for writing test scripts

  use Test::More tests => $Num_Tests;
  # or
  use Test::More qw(no_plan);
  # or
  use Test::More skip_all => $reason;

  BEGIN { use_ok( 'Some::Module' ); }
  require_ok( 'Some::Module' );

  # Various ways to say "ok"
  ok($this eq $that, $test_name);

  is  ($this, $that,    $test_name);
  isnt($this, $that,    $test_name);

  # Rather than print STDERR "# here's what went wrong\n"
  diag("here's what went wrong");

  like  ($this, qr/that/, $test_name);
  unlike($this, qr/that/, $test_name);

  cmp_ok($this, '==', $that, $test_name);

  is_deeply($complex_structure1, $complex_structure2, $test_name);

  SKIP: {
      skip $why, $how_many unless $have_some_feature;

      ok( foo(),       $test_name );
      is( foo(4), 23, $test_name );
  };

  TODO: {
      local $TODO = $why;

      ok( foo(),       $test_name );
      is( foo(4), 23, $test_name );
  };

  can_ok($module, @methods);
  isa_ok($object, $class);

  pass($test_name);
  fail($test_name);

  # Utility comparison functions.
  eq_array(\@this, \@that);
  eq_hash(\%this, \%that);
  eq_set(\@this, \@that);

  # UNIMPLEMENTED!!!
  my @status = Test::More::status;

  # UNIMPLEMENTED!!!
  BAIL_OUT($why);

STOP! If you're just getting started writing tests, have a look at Test::Simple first. This is a drop in replacement for Test::Simple which you can switch to once you get the hang of basic testing.

The purpose of this module is to provide a wide range of testing utilities. Various ways to say ok with better diagnostics, facilities to skip tests, test future features and compare complicated data structures. While you can do almost anything with a simple CWok() function, it doesn't provide good diagnostic output.

Before anything else, you need a testing plan. This basically declares how many tests your script is going to run to protect against premature failure.

The preferred way to do this is to declare a plan when you CWuse Test::More.

  use Test::More tests => $Num_Tests;

There are rare cases when you will not know beforehand how many tests your script is going to run. In this case, you can declare that you have no plan. (Try to avoid using this as it weakens your test.)

  use Test::More qw(no_plan);

NOTE: using no_plan requires a Test::Harness upgrade else it will think everything has failed. See BUGS and CAVEATS)

In some cases, you'll want to completely skip an entire testing script.

  use Test::More skip_all => $skip_reason;

Your script will declare a skip with the reason why you skipped and exit immediately with a zero (success). See Test::Harness for details.

If you want to control what functions Test::More will export, you have to use the 'import' option. For example, to import everything but 'fail', you'd do:

  use Test::More tests => 23, import => ['!fail'];

Alternatively, you can use the plan() function. Useful for when you have to calculate the number of tests.

  use Test::More;
  plan tests => keys %Stuff * 3;

or for deciding between running the tests at all:

  use Test::More;
  if( $^O eq 'MacOS' ) {
      plan skip_all => 'Test irrelevant on MacOS';
  }
  else {
      plan tests => 42;
  }

By convention, each test is assigned a number in order. This is largely done automatically for you. However, it's often very useful to assign a name to each test. Which would you rather see:

  ok 4
  not ok 5
  ok 6

or

  ok 4 - basic multi-variable
  not ok 5 - simple exponential
  ok 6 - force == mass * acceleration

The later gives you some idea of what failed. It also makes it easier to find the test in your script, simply search for simple exponential.

All test functions take a name argument. It's optional, but highly suggested that you use it.

The basic purpose of this module is to print out either ok # or not ok # depending on if a given test succeeded or failed. Everything else is just gravy.

All of the following print ok or not ok depending on if the test succeeded or failed. They all also return true or false, respectively.

ok

  ok($this eq $that, $test_name);

This simply evaluates any expression (CW$this eq $that is just a simple example) and uses that to determine if the test succeeded or failed. A true expression passes, a false one fails. Very simple. For example:

    ok( $exp{9} == 81,                   'simple exponential' );
    ok( Film->can('db_Main'),            'set_db()' );
    ok( $p->tests == 4,                  'saw tests' );
    ok( !grep !defined $_, @items,       'items populated' );

(Mnemonic: This is ok.) $test_name is a very short description of the test that will be printed out. It makes it very easy to find a test in your script when it fails and gives others an idea of your intentions. CW$test_name is optional, but we very strongly encourage its use. Should an ok() fail, it will produce some diagnostics:

    not ok 18 - sufficient mucus
    #     Failed test 18 (foo.t at line 42)

This is actually Test::Simple's ok() routine.

is

isnt

  is  ( $this, $that, $test_name );
  isnt( $this, $that, $test_name );

Similar to ok(), is() and isnt() compare their two arguments with CWeq and CWne respectively and use the result of that to determine if the test succeeded or failed. So these:

    # Is the ultimate answer 42?
    is( ultimate_answer(), 42,          "Meaning of Life" );

    # $foo isn't empty
    isnt( $foo, '',     "Got some foo" );

are similar to these:

    ok( ultimate_answer() eq 42,        "Meaning of Life" );
    ok( $foo ne '',     "Got some foo" );

(Mnemonic: This is that. This isn't that.) So why use these? They produce better diagnostics on failure. ok() cannot know what you are testing for (beyond the name), but is() and isnt() know what the test was and why it failed. For example this test:

    my $foo = 'waffle';  my $bar = 'yarblokos';
    is( $foo, $bar,   'Is foo the same as bar?' );

Will produce something like this:

    not ok 17 - Is foo the same as bar?
    #     Failed test (foo.t at line 139)
    #          got: 'waffle'
    #     expected: 'yarblokos'

So you can figure out what went wrong without rerunning the test. You are encouraged to use is() and isnt() over ok() where possible, however do not be tempted to use them to find out if something is true or false!

  # XXX BAD!
  is( exists $brooklyn{tree}, 1, 'A tree grows in Brooklyn' );

This does not check if CWexists $brooklyn{tree} is true, it checks if it returns 1. Very different. Similar caveats exist for false and 0. In these cases, use ok().

  ok( exists $brooklyn{tree},    'A tree grows in Brooklyn' );

For those grammatical pedants out there, there's an CWisn't() function which is an alias of isnt().

like

  like( $this, qr/that/, $test_name );

Similar to ok(), like() matches CW$this against the regex CWqr/that/. So this:

    like($this, qr/that/, 'this is like that');

is similar to:

    ok( $this =~ /that/, 'this is like that');

(Mnemonic This is like that.) The second argument is a regular expression. It may be given as a regex reference (i.e. CWqr//) or (for better compatibility with older perls) as a string that looks like a regex (alternative delimiters are currently not supported):

    like( $this, '/that/', 'this is like that' );

Regex options may be placed on the end (CW'/that/i'). Its advantages over ok() are similar to that of is() and isnt(). Better diagnostics on failure.

unlike

  unlike( $this, qr/that/, $test_name );

Works exactly as like(), only it checks if CW$this does not match the given pattern.

cmp_ok

  cmp_ok( $this, $op, $that, $test_name );

Halfway between ok() and is() lies cmp_ok(). This allows you to compare two arguments using any binary perl operator.

    # ok( $this eq $that );
    cmp_ok( $this, 'eq', $that, 'this eq that' );

    # ok( $this == $that );
    cmp_ok( $this, '==', $that, 'this == that' );

    # ok( $this && $that );
    cmp_ok( $this, '&&', $that, 'this && that' );
    ...etc...

Its advantage over ok() is when the test fails you'll know what CW$this and CW$that were:

    not ok 1
    #     Failed test (foo.t at line 12)
    #     '23'
    #         &&
    #     undef

It's also useful in those cases where you are comparing numbers and is()'s use of CWeq will interfere:

    cmp_ok( $big_hairy_number, '==', $another_big_hairy_number );

can_ok

  can_ok($module, @methods);
  can_ok($object, @methods);

Checks to make sure the CW$module or CW$object can do these CW@methods (works with functions, too).

    can_ok('Foo', qw(this that whatever));

is almost exactly like saying:

    ok( Foo->can('this') && 
        Foo->can('that') && 
        Foo->can('whatever') 
      );

only without all the typing and with a better interface. Handy for quickly testing an interface. No matter how many CW@methods you check, a single can_ok() call counts as one test. If you desire otherwise, use:

    foreach my $meth (@methods) {
        can_ok('Foo', $meth);
    }

isa_ok

  isa_ok($object, $class, $object_name);
  isa_ok($ref,    $type,  $ref_name);

Checks to see if the given CW$object->isa($class). Also checks to make sure the object was defined in the first place. Handy for this sort of thing:

    my $obj = Some::Module->new;
    isa_ok( $obj, 'Some::Module' );

where you'd otherwise have to write

    my $obj = Some::Module->new;
    ok( defined $obj && $obj->isa('Some::Module') );

to safeguard against your test script blowing up. It works on references, too:

    isa_ok( $array_ref, 'ARRAY' );

The diagnostics of this test normally just refer to 'the object'. If you'd like them to be more specific, you can supply an CW$object_name (for example 'Test customer').

pass

fail

  pass($test_name);
  fail($test_name);

Sometimes you just want to say that the tests have passed. Usually the case is you've got some complicated condition that is difficult to wedge into an ok(). In this case, you can simply use pass() (to declare the test ok) or fail (for not ok). They are synonyms for ok(1) and ok(0). Use these very, very, very sparingly.

If you pick the right test function, you'll usually get a good idea of what went wrong when it failed. But sometimes it doesn't work out that way. So here we have ways for you to write your own diagnostic messages which are safer than just CWprint STDERR.

diag

  diag(@diagnostic_message);

Prints a diagnostic message which is guaranteed not to interfere with test output. Like CWprint CW@diagnostic_message is simply concatinated together. Handy for this sort of thing:

    ok( grep(/foo/, @users), "There's a foo user" ) or
        diag("Since there's no foo, check that /etc/bar is set up right");

which would produce:

    not ok 42 - There's a foo user
    #     Failed test (foo.t at line 52)
    # Since there's no foo, check that /etc/bar is set up right.

You might remember CWok() or diag() with the mnemonic CWopen() or die(). All diag()s can be made silent by passing the no_diag option to Test::More. CWuse Test::More tests = 1, 'no_diag'>. This is useful if you have diagnostics for personal testing but then wish to make them silent for release without commenting out each individual statement. NOTE The exact formatting of the diagnostic output is still changing, but it is guaranteed that whatever you throw at it it won't interfere with the test.

You usually want to test if the module you're testing loads ok, rather than just vomiting if its load fails. For such purposes we have CWuse_ok and CWrequire_ok.

use_ok

   BEGIN { use_ok($module); }
   BEGIN { use_ok($module, @imports); }

These simply use the given CW$module and test to make sure the load happened ok. It's recommended that you run use_ok() inside a BEGIN block so its functions are exported at compile-time and prototypes are properly honored. If CW@imports are given, they are passed through to the use. So this:

   BEGIN { use_ok('Some::Module', qw(foo bar)) }

is like doing this:

   use Some::Module qw(foo bar);

Version numbers can be checked like so:

   # Just like "use Some::Module 1.02"
   BEGIN { use_ok('Some::Module', 1.02) }

Don't try to do this:

   BEGIN {
       use_ok('Some::Module');

       ...some code that depends on the use...
       ...happening at compile time...
   }

because the notion of compile-time is relative. Instead, you want:

  BEGIN { use_ok('Some::Module') }
  BEGIN { ...some code that depends on the use... }

require_ok

   require_ok($module);
   require_ok($file);

Like use_ok(), except it requires the CW$module or CW$file.

Sometimes running a test under certain conditions will cause the test script to die. A certain function or method isn't implemented (such as fork() on MacOS), some resource isn't available (like a net connection) or a module isn't available. In these cases it's necessary to skip tests, or declare that they are supposed to fail but will work in the future (a todo test).

For more details on the mechanics of skip and todo tests see Test::Harness.

The way Test::More handles this is with a named block. Basically, a block of tests which can be skipped over or made todo. It's best if I just show you...

SKIP: BLOCK

  SKIP: {
      skip $why, $how_many if $condition;

      ...normal testing code goes here...
  }

This declares a block of tests that might be skipped, CW$how_many tests there are, CW$why and under what CW$condition to skip them. An example is the easiest way to illustrate:

    SKIP: {
        eval { require HTML::Lint };

        skip "HTML::Lint not installed", 2 if $@;

        my $lint = new HTML::Lint;
        isa_ok( $lint, "HTML::Lint" );

        $lint->parse( $html );
        is( $lint->errors, 0, "No errors found in HTML" );
    }

If the user does not have HTML::Lint installed, the whole block of code won't be run at all. Test::More will output special ok's which Test::Harness interprets as skipped, but passing, tests. It's important that CW$how_many accurately reflects the number of tests in the SKIP block so the # of tests run will match up with your plan. If your plan is CWno_plan CW$how_many is optional and will default to 1. It's perfectly safe to nest SKIP blocks. Each SKIP block must have the label CWSKIP, or Test::More can't work its magic. You don't skip tests which are failing because there's a bug in your program, or for which you don't yet have code written. For that you use TODO. Read on.

TODO: BLOCK

    TODO: {
        local $TODO = $why if $condition;

        ...normal testing code goes here...
    }

Declares a block of tests you expect to fail and CW$why. Perhaps it's because you haven't fixed a bug or haven't finished a new feature:

    TODO: {
        local $TODO = "URI::Geller not finished";

        my $card = "Eight of clubs";
        is( URI::Geller->your_card, $card, 'Is THIS your card?' );

        my $spoon;
        URI::Geller->bend_spoon;
        is( $spoon, 'bent',    "Spoon bending, that's original" );
    }

With a todo block, the tests inside are expected to fail. Test::More will run the tests normally, but print out special flags indicating they are todo. Test::Harness will interpret failures as being ok. Should anything succeed, it will report it as an unexpected success. You then know the thing you had todo is done and can remove the TODO flag. The nice part about todo tests, as opposed to simply commenting out a block of tests, is it's like having a programmatic todo list. You know how much work is left to be done, you're aware of what bugs there are, and you'll know immediately when they're fixed. Once a todo test starts succeeding, simply move it outside the block. When the block is empty, delete it. NOTE: TODO tests require a Test::Harness upgrade else it will treat it as a normal failure. See BUGS and CAVEATS)

todo_skip

    TODO: {
        todo_skip $why, $how_many if $condition;

        ...normal testing code...
    }

With todo tests, it's best to have the tests actually run. That way you'll know when they start passing. Sometimes this isn't possible. Often a failing test will cause the whole program to die or hang, even inside an CWeval BLOCK with and using CWalarm. In these extreme cases you have no choice but to skip over the broken tests entirely. The syntax and behavior is similar to a CWSKIP: BLOCK except the tests will be marked as failing but todo. Test::Harness will interpret them as passing.

When do I use SKIP vs. TODO?

If it's something the user might not be able to do, use SKIP. This includes optional modules that aren't installed, running under an OS that doesn't have some feature (like fork() or symlinks), or maybe you need an Internet connection and one isn't available. If it's something the programmer hasn't done yet, use TODO. This is for any code you haven't written yet, or bugs you have yet to fix, but want to put tests in your testing script (always a good idea).

Not everything is a simple eq check or regex. There are times you need to see if two arrays are equivalent, for instance. For these instances, Test::More provides a handful of useful functions.

NOTE I'm not quite sure what will happen with filehandles.

is_deeply

  is_deeply( $this, $that, $test_name );

Similar to is(), except that if CW$this and CW$that are hash or array references, it does a deep comparison walking each data structure to see if they are equivalent. If the two structures are different, it will display the place where they start differing. Test::Differences and Test::Deep provide more in-depth functionality along these lines.

eq_array

  eq_array(\@this, \@that);

Checks if two arrays are equivalent. This is a deep check, so multi-level structures are handled correctly.

eq_hash

  eq_hash(\%this, \%that);

Determines if the two hashes contain the same keys and values. This is a deep check.

eq_set

  eq_set(\@this, \@that);

Similar to eq_array(), except the order of the elements is not important. This is a deep check, but the irrelevancy of order only applies to the top level. NOTE By historical accident, this is not a true set comparision. While the order of elements does not matter, duplicate elements do.

Sometimes the Test::More interface isn't quite enough. Fortunately, Test::More is built on top of Test::Builder which provides a single, unified backend for any test library to use. This means two test libraries which both use Test::Builder can be used together in the same program.

If you simply want to do a little tweaking of how the tests behave, you can access the underlying Test::Builder object like so:

builder

    my $test_builder = Test::More->builder;

Returns the Test::Builder object underlying Test::More for you to play with.

If all your tests passed, Test::Builder will exit with zero (which is normal). If anything failed it will exit with how many failed. If you run less (or more) tests than you planned, the missing (or extras) will be considered failures. If no tests were ever run Test::Builder will throw a warning and exit with 255. If the test died, even after having successfully completed all its tests, it will still be considered a failure and will exit with 255.

So the exit codes are...

    0                   all tests successful
    255                 test died
    any other number    how many failed (including missing or extras)

If you fail more than 254 tests, it will be reported as 254.

Backwards compatibility

Test::More works with Perls as old as 5.004_05.

Overloaded objects

String overloaded objects are compared as strings. This prevents Test::More from piercing an object's interface allowing better blackbox testing. So if a function starts returning overloaded objects instead of bare strings your tests won't notice the difference. This is good. However, it does mean that functions like is_deeply() cannot be used to test the internals of string overloaded objects. In this case I would suggest Test::Deep which contains more flexible testing functions for complex data structures.

Threads

Test::More will only be aware of threads if use threads has been done before Test::More is loaded. This is ok:

    use threads;
    use Test::More;

This may cause problems:

    use Test::More
    use threads;

Test::Harness upgrade

no_plan and todo depend on new Test::Harness features and fixes. If you're going to distribute tests that use no_plan or todo your end-users will have to upgrade Test::Harness to the latest one on CPAN. If you avoid no_plan and TODO tests, the stock Test::Harness will work fine. Installing Test::More should also upgrade Test::Harness.

This is a case of convergent evolution with Joshua Pritikin's Test module. I was largely unaware of its existence when I'd first written my own ok() routines. This module exists because I can't figure out how to easily wedge test names into Test's interface (along with a few other problems).

The goal here is to have a testing utility that's simple to learn, quick to use and difficult to trip yourself up with while still providing more flexibility than the existing Test.pm. As such, the names of the most common routines are kept tiny, special cases and magic side-effects are kept to a minimum. WYSIWYG.

Test::Simple if all this confuses you and you just want to write some tests. You can upgrade to Test::More later (it's forward compatible).

Test is the old testing module. Its main benefit is that it has been distributed with Perl since 5.004_05.

Test::Harness for details on how your test results are interpreted by Perl.

Test::Differences for more ways to test complex data structures. And it plays well with Test::More.

Test::Class is like XUnit but more perlish.

Test::Deep gives you more powerful complex data structure testing.

Test::Unit is XUnit style testing.

Test::Inline shows the idea of embedded testing.

Bundle::Test installs a whole bunch of useful test modules.

Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> with much inspiration from Joshua Pritikin's Test module and lots of help from Barrie Slaymaker, Tony Bowden, blackstar.co.uk, chromatic, Fergal Daly and the perl-qa gang.

See http://rt.cpan.org to report and view bugs.

Copyright 2001, 2002, 2004 by Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.

See http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html