[tpm] testing; using eval to catch an error in a module

[Madison Kelly]

Michael Graham wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it the "proper" way, but my Googling 
>> hasn't yielded much yet. The most I've been able to gather so far is 
>> that the "normal" way is to have a 't' directory and in there have a 
>> 'test.pl' that 'make install' can call.
> 
> Well, it is true that "make test" will indeed run your module's test
> suite.  But honestly, that's not the main reason to do things The
> Right Way (tm) instead of the Hacky Handmade Way (tm).
> 
> The advantages to doing standard Perl testing are:
> 
>   * your tests will be easier to write
>   
>   * your tests will be more concise
> 
>   * your tests will be more maintainable
> 
>   * your tests will make sense to other people
> 
>   * you can do more sophisticated testing more quickly (e.g. with
>     Test::Deep, Test::MockObject, etc.)
> 
>   * you can get Test coverage with Devel::Cover
> 
>   * you can make a web-based dashboard of your test results by
>     running your tests automatically on an hourly schedule and
>     importing them into Smolder.  
>     
>     Imagine setting off alarm bells right after you break
>     your code, instead of discovering the problem three weeks later
>     when you finally decide to run your test suite again!
> 
> To get started, check out the following docs:
> 
>  Test::Tutorial:
>  http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/perl-5.10.0/lib/Test/Tutorial.pod
> 
>  prove
>  http://search.cpan.org/~andya/Test-Harness-3.17/bin/prove
> 
>  Test::More:
>  http://search.cpan.org/~mschwern/Test-Simple-0.92/lib/Test/More.pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael

Thanks Michael!

   I've been reading Test::More since you sent your first email. I'll 
read up on those links, too.

   I figured I was starting to re-invent the wheel, which is why I 
asked. I knew there had to be a better/existing way to do this. Thanks 
for pointing me in the right direction!

Madi