Initial commit of OpenSPARC T2 design and verification files.

[OpenSPARC-T2-DV] / tools / perl-5.8.0 / man / man3 / Test::More.3

.\" Automatically generated by Pod::Man v1.34, Pod::Parser v1.13
.\"
.\" Standard preamble:
.\" ========================================================================
.de Sh \" Subsection heading
.br
.if t .Sp
.ne 5
.PP
\fB\\$1\fR
.PP
..
.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
..
.\" Set up some character translations and predefined strings.  \*(-- will
.\" give an unbreakable dash, \*(PI will give pi, \*(L" will give a left
.\" double quote, and \*(R" will give a right double quote.  | will give a
.\" real vertical bar.  \*(C+ will give a nicer C++.  Capital omega is used to
.\" do unbreakable dashes and therefore won't be available.  \*(C` and \*(C'
.\" expand to `' in nroff, nothing in troff, for use with C<>.
.tr \(*W-|\(bv\*(Tr
.ds C+ C\v'-.1v'\h'-1p'\s-2+\h'-1p'+\s0\v'.1v'\h'-1p'
.ie n \{\
.    ds -- \(*W-
.    ds PI pi
.    if (\n(.H=4u)&(1m=24u) .ds -- \(*W\h'-12u'\(*W\h'-12u'-\" diablo 10 pitch
.    if (\n(.H=4u)&(1m=20u) .ds -- \(*W\h'-12u'\(*W\h'-8u'-\"  diablo 12 pitch
.    ds L" ""
.    ds R" ""
.    ds C` ""
.    ds C' ""
'br\}
.el\{\
.    ds -- \|\(em\|
.    ds PI \(*p
.    ds L" ``
.    ds R" ''
'br\}
.\"
.\" If the F register is turned on, we'll generate index entries on stderr for
.\" titles (.TH), headers (.SH), subsections (.Sh), items (.Ip), and index
.\" entries marked with X<> in POD.  Of course, you'll have to process the
.\" output yourself in some meaningful fashion.
.if \nF \{\
.    de IX
.    tm Index:\\$1\t\\n%\t"\\$2"
..
.    nr % 0
.    rr F
.\}
.\"
.\" For nroff, turn off justification.  Always turn off hyphenation; it makes
.\" way too many mistakes in technical documents.
.hy 0
.if n .na
.\"
.\" Accent mark definitions (@(#)ms.acc 1.5 88/02/08 SMI; from UCB 4.2).
.\" Fear.  Run.  Save yourself.  No user-serviceable parts.
.    \" fudge factors for nroff and troff
.if n \{\
.    ds #H 0
.    ds #V .8m
.    ds #F .3m
.    ds #[ \f1
.    ds #] \fP
.\}
.if t \{\
.    ds #H ((1u-(\\\\n(.fu%2u))*.13m)
.    ds #V .6m
.    ds #F 0
.    ds #[ \&
.    ds #] \&
.\}
.    \" simple accents for nroff and troff
.if n \{\
.    ds ' \&
.    ds ` \&
.    ds ^ \&
.    ds , \&
.    ds ~ ~
.    ds /
.\}
.if t \{\
.    ds ' \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*8/10-\*(#H)'\'\h"|\\n:u"
.    ds ` \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*8/10-\*(#H)'\`\h'|\\n:u'
.    ds ^ \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*10/11-\*(#H)'^\h'|\\n:u'
.    ds , \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*8/10)',\h'|\\n:u'
.    ds ~ \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu-\*(#H-.1m)'~\h'|\\n:u'
.    ds / \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*8/10-\*(#H)'\z\(sl\h'|\\n:u'
.\}
.    \" troff and (daisy-wheel) nroff accents
.ds : \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*8/10-\*(#H+.1m+\*(#F)'\v'-\*(#V'\z.\h'.2m+\*(#F'.\h'|\\n:u'\v'\*(#V'
.ds 8 \h'\*(#H'\(*b\h'-\*(#H'
.ds o \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu+\w'\(de'u-\*(#H)/2u'\v'-.3n'\*(#[\z\(de\v'.3n'\h'|\\n:u'\*(#]
.ds d- \h'\*(#H'\(pd\h'-\w'~'u'\v'-.25m'\f2\(hy\fP\v'.25m'\h'-\*(#H'
.ds D- D\\k:\h'-\w'D'u'\v'-.11m'\z\(hy\v'.11m'\h'|\\n:u'
.ds th \*(#[\v'.3m'\s+1I\s-1\v'-.3m'\h'-(\w'I'u*2/3)'\s-1o\s+1\*(#]
.ds Th \*(#[\s+2I\s-2\h'-\w'I'u*3/5'\v'-.3m'o\v'.3m'\*(#]
.ds ae a\h'-(\w'a'u*4/10)'e
.ds Ae A\h'-(\w'A'u*4/10)'E
.    \" corrections for vroff
.if v .ds ~ \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*9/10-\*(#H)'\s-2\u~\d\s+2\h'|\\n:u'
.if v .ds ^ \\k:\h'-(\\n(.wu*10/11-\*(#H)'\v'-.4m'^\v'.4m'\h'|\\n:u'
.    \" for low resolution devices (crt and lpr)
.if \n(.H>23 .if \n(.V>19 \
\{\
.    ds : e
.    ds 8 ss
.    ds o a
.    ds d- d\h'-1'\(ga
.    ds D- D\h'-1'\(hy
.    ds th \o'bp'
.    ds Th \o'LP'
.    ds ae ae
.    ds Ae AE
.\}
.rm #[ #] #H #V #F C
.\" ========================================================================
.\"
.IX Title "Test::More 3"
.TH Test::More 3 "2002-06-01" "perl v5.8.0" "Perl Programmers Reference Guide"
.SH "NAME"
Test::More \- yet another framework for writing test scripts
.SH "SYNOPSIS"
.IX Header "SYNOPSIS"
.Vb 5
\&  use Test::More tests => $Num_Tests;
\&  # or
\&  use Test::More qw(no_plan);
\&  # or
\&  use Test::More skip_all => $reason;
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  BEGIN { use_ok( 'Some::Module' ); }
\&  require_ok( 'Some::Module' );
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  # Various ways to say "ok"
\&  ok($this eq $that, $test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  is  ($this, $that,    $test_name);
\&  isnt($this, $that,    $test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  # Rather than print STDERR "# here's what went wrong\en"
\&  diag("here's what went wrong");
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  like  ($this, qr/that/, $test_name);
\&  unlike($this, qr/that/, $test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  cmp_ok($this, '==', $that, $test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  is_deeply($complex_structure1, $complex_structure2, $test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  SKIP: {
\&      skip $why, $how_many unless $have_some_feature;
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 3
\&      ok( foo(),       $test_name );
\&      is( foo(42), 23, $test_name );
\&  };
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  TODO: {
\&      local $TODO = $why;
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 3
\&      ok( foo(),       $test_name );
\&      is( foo(42), 23, $test_name );
\&  };
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  can_ok($module, @methods);
\&  isa_ok($object, $class);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  pass($test_name);
\&  fail($test_name);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 4
\&  # Utility comparison functions.
\&  eq_array(\e@this, \e@that);
\&  eq_hash(\e%this, \e%that);
\&  eq_set(\e@this, \e@that);
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  # UNIMPLEMENTED!!!
\&  my @status = Test::More::status;
.Ve
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  # UNIMPLEMENTED!!!
\&  BAIL_OUT($why);
.Ve
.SH "DESCRIPTION"
.IX Header "DESCRIPTION"
\&\fB\s-1STOP\s0!\fR 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.
.PP
The purpose of this module is to provide a wide range of testing
utilities.  Various ways to say \*(L"ok\*(R" with better diagnostics,
facilities to skip tests, test future features and compare complicated
data structures.  While you can do almost anything with a simple
\&\f(CW\*(C`ok()\*(C'\fR function, it doesn't provide good diagnostic output.
.Sh "I love it when a plan comes together"
.IX Subsection "I love it when a plan comes together"
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.
.PP
The preferred way to do this is to declare a plan when you \f(CW\*(C`use Test::More\*(C'\fR.
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  use Test::More tests => $Num_Tests;
.Ve
.PP
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.)
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  use Test::More qw(no_plan);
.Ve
.PP
In some cases, you'll want to completely skip an entire testing script.
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  use Test::More skip_all => $skip_reason;
.Ve
.PP
Your script will declare a skip with the reason why you skipped and
exit immediately with a zero (success).  See Test::Harness for
details.
.PP
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:
.PP
.Vb 1
\&  use Test::More tests => 23, import => ['!fail'];
.Ve
.PP
Alternatively, you can use the \fIplan()\fR function.  Useful for when you
have to calculate the number of tests.
.PP
.Vb 2
\&  use Test::More;
\&  plan tests => keys %Stuff * 3;
.Ve
.PP
or for deciding between running the tests at all:
.PP
.Vb 7
\&  use Test::More;
\&  if( $^O eq 'MacOS' ) {
\&      plan skip_all => 'Test irrelevant on MacOS';
\&  }
\&  else {
\&      plan tests => 42;
\&  }
.Ve
.Sh "Test names"
.IX Subsection "Test names"
By convention, each test is assigned a number in order.  This is
largely done automatically for you.  However, it's often very useful to
assign a name to each test.  Which would you rather see:
.PP
.Vb 3
\&  ok 4
\&  not ok 5
\&  ok 6
.Ve
.PP
or
.PP
.Vb 3
\&  ok 4 - basic multi-variable
\&  not ok 5 - simple exponential
\&  ok 6 - force == mass * acceleration
.Ve
.PP
The later gives you some idea of what failed.  It also makes it easier
to find the test in your script, simply search for \*(L"simple
exponential\*(R".
.PP
All test functions take a name argument.  It's optional, but highly
suggested that you use it.
.Sh "I'm ok, you're not ok."
.IX Subsection "I'm ok, you're not ok."
The basic purpose of this module is to print out either \*(L"ok #\*(R" or \*(L"not
ok #\*(R" depending on if a given test succeeded or failed.  Everything
else is just gravy.
.PP
All of the following print \*(L"ok\*(R" or \*(L"not ok\*(R" depending on if the test
succeeded or failed.  They all also return true or false,
respectively.
.IP "\fBok\fR" 4
.IX Item "ok"
.Vb 1
\&  ok($this eq $that, $test_name);
.Ve
.Sp
This simply evaluates any expression (\f(CW\*(C`$this eq $that\*(C'\fR 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.
.Sp
For example:
.Sp
.Vb 4
\&    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' );
.Ve
.Sp
(Mnemonic:  \*(L"This is ok.\*(R")
.Sp
$test_name is a very short description of the test that will be printed
out.  It makes it very easy to find a test in your script when it fails
and gives others an idea of your intentions.  \f(CW$test_name\fR is optional,
but we \fBvery\fR strongly encourage its use.
.Sp
Should an \fIok()\fR fail, it will produce some diagnostics:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    not ok 18 - sufficient mucus
\&    #     Failed test 18 (foo.t at line 42)
.Ve
.Sp
This is actually Test::Simple's \fIok()\fR routine.
.IP "\fBis\fR" 4
.IX Item "is"
.PD 0
.IP "\fBisnt\fR" 4
.IX Item "isnt"
.PD
.Vb 2
\&  is  ( $this, $that, $test_name );
\&  isnt( $this, $that, $test_name );
.Ve
.Sp
Similar to \fIok()\fR, \fIis()\fR and \fIisnt()\fR compare their two arguments
with \f(CW\*(C`eq\*(C'\fR and \f(CW\*(C`ne\*(C'\fR respectively and use the result of that to
determine if the test succeeded or failed.  So these:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    # Is the ultimate answer 42?
\&    is( ultimate_answer(), 42,          "Meaning of Life" );
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    # $foo isn't empty
\&    isnt( $foo, '',     "Got some foo" );
.Ve
.Sp
are similar to these:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    ok( ultimate_answer() eq 42,        "Meaning of Life" );
\&    ok( $foo ne '',     "Got some foo" );
.Ve
.Sp
(Mnemonic:  \*(L"This is that.\*(R"  \*(L"This isn't that.\*(R")
.Sp
So why use these?  They produce better diagnostics on failure.  \fIok()\fR
cannot know what you are testing for (beyond the name), but \fIis()\fR and
\&\fIisnt()\fR know what the test was and why it failed.  For example this
test:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    my $foo = 'waffle';  my $bar = 'yarblokos';
\&    is( $foo, $bar,   'Is foo the same as bar?' );
.Ve
.Sp
Will produce something like this:
.Sp
.Vb 4
\&    not ok 17 - Is foo the same as bar?
\&    #     Failed test 1 (foo.t at line 139)
\&    #          got: 'waffle'
\&    #     expected: 'yarblokos'
.Ve
.Sp
So you can figure out what went wrong without rerunning the test.
.Sp
You are encouraged to use \fIis()\fR and \fIisnt()\fR over \fIok()\fR where possible,
however do not be tempted to use them to find out if something is
true or false!
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&  # XXX BAD!  $pope->isa('Catholic') eq 1
\&  is( $pope->isa('Catholic'), 1,        'Is the Pope Catholic?' );
.Ve
.Sp
This does not check if \f(CW\*(C`$pope\-\*(C'\fRisa('Catholic')> is true, it checks if
it returns 1.  Very different.  Similar caveats exist for false and 0.
In these cases, use \fIok()\fR.
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&  ok( $pope->isa('Catholic') ),         'Is the Pope Catholic?' );
.Ve
.Sp
For those grammatical pedants out there, there's an \f(CW\*(C`isn't()\*(C'\fR
function which is an alias of \fIisnt()\fR.
.IP "\fBlike\fR" 4
.IX Item "like"
.Vb 1
\&  like( $this, qr/that/, $test_name );
.Ve
.Sp
Similar to \fIok()\fR, \fIlike()\fR matches \f(CW$this\fR against the regex \f(CW\*(C`qr/that/\*(C'\fR.
.Sp
So this:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    like($this, qr/that/, 'this is like that');
.Ve
.Sp
is similar to:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    ok( $this =~ /that/, 'this is like that');
.Ve
.Sp
(Mnemonic \*(L"This is like that\*(R".)
.Sp
The second argument is a regular expression.  It may be given as a
regex reference (i.e. \f(CW\*(C`qr//\*(C'\fR) or (for better compatibility with older
perls) as a string that looks like a regex (alternative delimiters are
currently not supported):
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    like( $this, '/that/', 'this is like that' );
.Ve
.Sp
Regex options may be placed on the end (\f(CW'/that/i'\fR).
.Sp
Its advantages over \fIok()\fR are similar to that of \fIis()\fR and \fIisnt()\fR.  Better
diagnostics on failure.
.IP "\fBunlike\fR" 4
.IX Item "unlike"
.Vb 1
\&  unlike( $this, qr/that/, $test_name );
.Ve
.Sp
Works exactly as \fIlike()\fR, only it checks if \f(CW$this\fR \fBdoes not\fR match the
given pattern.
.IP "\fBcmp_ok\fR" 4
.IX Item "cmp_ok"
.Vb 1
\&  cmp_ok( $this, $op, $that, $test_name );
.Ve
.Sp
Halfway between \fIok()\fR and \fIis()\fR lies \fIcmp_ok()\fR.  This allows you to
compare two arguments using any binary perl operator.
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    # ok( $this eq $that );
\&    cmp_ok( $this, 'eq', $that, 'this eq that' );
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    # ok( $this == $that );
\&    cmp_ok( $this, '==', $that, 'this == that' );
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 3
\&    # ok( $this && $that );
\&    cmp_ok( $this, '&&', $that, 'this || that' );
\&    ...etc...
.Ve
.Sp
Its advantage over \fIok()\fR is when the test fails you'll know what \f(CW$this\fR
and \f(CW$that\fR were:
.Sp
.Vb 5
\&    not ok 1
\&    #     Failed test (foo.t at line 12)
\&    #     '23'
\&    #         &&
\&    #     undef
.Ve
.Sp
It's also useful in those cases where you are comparing numbers and
\&\fIis()\fR's use of \f(CW\*(C`eq\*(C'\fR will interfere:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    cmp_ok( $big_hairy_number, '==', $another_big_hairy_number );
.Ve
.IP "\fBcan_ok\fR" 4
.IX Item "can_ok"
.Vb 2
\&  can_ok($module, @methods);
\&  can_ok($object, @methods);
.Ve
.Sp
Checks to make sure the \f(CW$module\fR or \f(CW$object\fR can do these \f(CW@methods\fR
(works with functions, too).
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    can_ok('Foo', qw(this that whatever));
.Ve
.Sp
is almost exactly like saying:
.Sp
.Vb 4
\&    ok( Foo->can('this') && 
\&        Foo->can('that') && 
\&        Foo->can('whatever') 
\&      );
.Ve
.Sp
only without all the typing and with a better interface.  Handy for
quickly testing an interface.
.Sp
No matter how many \f(CW@methods\fR you check, a single \fIcan_ok()\fR call counts
as one test.  If you desire otherwise, use:
.Sp
.Vb 3
\&    foreach my $meth (@methods) {
\&        can_ok('Foo', $meth);
\&    }
.Ve
.IP "\fBisa_ok\fR" 4
.IX Item "isa_ok"
.Vb 2
\&  isa_ok($object, $class, $object_name);
\&  isa_ok($ref,    $type,  $ref_name);
.Ve
.Sp
Checks to see if the given \f(CW$object\fR\->isa($class).  Also checks to make
sure the object was defined in the first place.  Handy for this sort
of thing:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    my $obj = Some::Module->new;
\&    isa_ok( $obj, 'Some::Module' );
.Ve
.Sp
where you'd otherwise have to write
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    my $obj = Some::Module->new;
\&    ok( defined $obj && $obj->isa('Some::Module') );
.Ve
.Sp
to safeguard against your test script blowing up.
.Sp
It works on references, too:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&    isa_ok( $array_ref, 'ARRAY' );
.Ve
.Sp
The diagnostics of this test normally just refer to 'the object'.  If
you'd like them to be more specific, you can supply an \f(CW$object_name\fR
(for example 'Test customer').
.IP "\fBpass\fR" 4
.IX Item "pass"
.PD 0
.IP "\fBfail\fR" 4
.IX Item "fail"
.PD
.Vb 2
\&  pass($test_name);
\&  fail($test_name);
.Ve
.Sp
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 \fIok()\fR.  In this case, you can simply use \fIpass()\fR (to
declare the test ok) or fail (for not ok).  They are synonyms for
\&\fIok\fR\|(1) and \fIok\fR\|(0).
.Sp
Use these very, very, very sparingly.
.Sh "Diagnostics"
.IX Subsection "Diagnostics"
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 \f(CW\*(C`print STDERR\*(C'\fR.
.IP "\fBdiag\fR" 4
.IX Item "diag"
.Vb 1
\&  diag(@diagnostic_message);
.Ve
.Sp
Prints a diagnostic message which is guaranteed not to interfere with
test output.  Handy for this sort of thing:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    ok( grep(/foo/, @users), "There's a foo user" ) or
\&        diag("Since there's no foo, check that /etc/bar is set up right");
.Ve
.Sp
which would produce:
.Sp
.Vb 3
\&    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.
.Ve
.Sp
You might remember \f(CW\*(C`ok() or diag()\*(C'\fR with the mnemonic \f(CW\*(C`open() or
die()\*(C'\fR.
.Sp
\&\fB\s-1NOTE\s0\fR 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.
.Sh "Module tests"
.IX Subsection "Module tests"
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
\&\f(CW\*(C`use_ok\*(C'\fR and \f(CW\*(C`require_ok\*(C'\fR.
.IP "\fBuse_ok\fR" 4
.IX Item "use_ok"
.Vb 2
\&   BEGIN { use_ok($module); }
\&   BEGIN { use_ok($module, @imports); }
.Ve
.Sp
These simply use the given \f(CW$module\fR and test to make sure the load
happened ok.  It's recommended that you run \fIuse_ok()\fR inside a \s-1BEGIN\s0
block so its functions are exported at compile-time and prototypes are
properly honored.
.Sp
If \f(CW@imports\fR are given, they are passed through to the use.  So this:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&   BEGIN { use_ok('Some::Module', qw(foo bar)) }
.Ve
.Sp
is like doing this:
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&   use Some::Module qw(foo bar);
.Ve
.Sp
don't try to do this:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&   BEGIN {
\&       use_ok('Some::Module');
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 3
\&       ...some code that depends on the use...
\&       ...happening at compile time...
\&   }
.Ve
.Sp
instead, you want:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&  BEGIN { use_ok('Some::Module') }
\&  BEGIN { ...some code that depends on the use... }
.Ve
.IP "\fBrequire_ok\fR" 4
.IX Item "require_ok"
.Vb 1
\&   require_ok($module);
.Ve
.Sp
Like \fIuse_ok()\fR, except it requires the \f(CW$module\fR.
.Sh "Conditional tests"
.IX Subsection "Conditional tests"
Sometimes running a test under certain conditions will cause the
test script to die.  A certain function or method isn't implemented
(such as \fIfork()\fR 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).
.PP
For more details on the mechanics of skip and todo tests see
Test::Harness.
.PP
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...
.IP "\fB\s-1SKIP:\s0 \s-1BLOCK\s0\fR" 4
.IX Item "SKIP: BLOCK"
.Vb 2
\&  SKIP: {
\&      skip $why, $how_many if $condition;
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&      ...normal testing code goes here...
\&  }
.Ve
.Sp
This declares a block of tests that might be skipped, \f(CW$how_many\fR tests
there are, \f(CW$why\fR and under what \f(CW$condition\fR to skip them.  An example is
the easiest way to illustrate:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    SKIP: {
\&        eval { require HTML::Lint };
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 1
\&        skip "HTML::Lint not installed", 2 if $@;
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&        my $lint = new HTML::Lint;
\&        ok( $lint, "Created object" );
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 3
\&        $lint->parse( $html );
\&        is( scalar $lint->errors, 0, "No errors found in HTML" );
\&    }
.Ve
.Sp
If the user does not have HTML::Lint installed, the whole block of
code \fIwon't be run at all\fR.  Test::More will output special ok's
which Test::Harness interprets as skipped, but passing, tests.
It's important that \f(CW$how_many\fR accurately reflects the number of tests
in the \s-1SKIP\s0 block so the # of tests run will match up with your plan.
.Sp
It's perfectly safe to nest \s-1SKIP\s0 blocks.  Each \s-1SKIP\s0 block must have
the label \f(CW\*(C`SKIP\*(C'\fR, or Test::More can't work its magic.
.Sp
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 \s-1TODO\s0.  Read on.
.IP "\fB\s-1TODO:\s0 \s-1BLOCK\s0\fR" 4
.IX Item "TODO: BLOCK"
.Vb 2
\&    TODO: {
\&        local $TODO = $why if $condition;
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&        ...normal testing code goes here...
\&    }
.Ve
.Sp
Declares a block of tests you expect to fail and \f(CW$why\fR.  Perhaps it's
because you haven't fixed a bug or haven't finished a new feature:
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&    TODO: {
\&        local $TODO = "URI::Geller not finished";
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&        my $card = "Eight of clubs";
\&        is( URI::Geller->your_card, $card, 'Is THIS your card?' );
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 4
\&        my $spoon;
\&        URI::Geller->bend_spoon;
\&        is( $spoon, 'bent',    "Spoon bending, that's original" );
\&    }
.Ve
.Sp
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 \*(L"todo\*(R".  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
\&\s-1TODO\s0 flag.
.Sp
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.
.Sp
Once a todo test starts succeeding, simply move it outside the block.
When the block is empty, delete it.
.IP "\fBtodo_skip\fR" 4
.IX Item "todo_skip"
.Vb 2
\&    TODO: {
\&        todo_skip $why, $how_many if $condition;
.Ve
.Sp
.Vb 2
\&        ...normal testing code...
\&    }
.Ve
.Sp
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 \f(CW\*(C`eval BLOCK\*(C'\fR with and using \f(CW\*(C`alarm\*(C'\fR.  In these extreme
cases you have no choice but to skip over the broken tests entirely.
.Sp
The syntax and behavior is similar to a \f(CW\*(C`SKIP: BLOCK\*(C'\fR except the
tests will be marked as failing but todo.  Test::Harness will
interpret them as passing.
.IP "When do I use \s-1SKIP\s0 vs. \s-1TODO\s0?" 4
.IX Item "When do I use SKIP vs. TODO?"
\&\fBIf it's something the user might not be able to do\fR, use \s-1SKIP\s0.
This includes optional modules that aren't installed, running under
an \s-1OS\s0 that doesn't have some feature (like \fIfork()\fR or symlinks), or maybe
you need an Internet connection and one isn't available.
.Sp
\&\fBIf it's something the programmer hasn't done yet\fR, use \s-1TODO\s0.  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).
.Sh "Comparison functions"
.IX Subsection "Comparison functions"
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.
.PP
\&\fB\s-1NOTE\s0\fR These are \s-1NOT\s0 well-tested on circular references.  Nor am I
quite sure what will happen with filehandles.
.IP "\fBis_deeply\fR" 4
.IX Item "is_deeply"
.Vb 1
\&  is_deeply( $this, $that, $test_name );
.Ve
.Sp
Similar to \fIis()\fR, except that if \f(CW$this\fR and \f(CW$that\fR 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.
.Sp
Barrie Slaymaker's Test::Differences module provides more in-depth
functionality along these lines, and it plays well with Test::More.
.Sp
\&\fB\s-1NOTE\s0\fR Display of scalar refs is not quite 100%
.IP "\fBeq_array\fR" 4
.IX Item "eq_array"
.Vb 1
\&  eq_array(\e@this, \e@that);
.Ve
.Sp
Checks if two arrays are equivalent.  This is a deep check, so
multi-level structures are handled correctly.
.IP "\fBeq_hash\fR" 4
.IX Item "eq_hash"
.Vb 1
\&  eq_hash(\e%this, \e%that);
.Ve
.Sp
Determines if the two hashes contain the same keys and values.  This
is a deep check.
.IP "\fBeq_set\fR" 4
.IX Item "eq_set"
.Vb 1
\&  eq_set(\e@this, \e@that);
.Ve
.Sp
Similar to \fIeq_array()\fR, except the order of the elements is \fBnot\fR
important.  This is a deep check, but the irrelevancy of order only
applies to the top level.
.Sh "Extending and Embedding Test::More"
.IX Subsection "Extending and Embedding Test::More"
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 \fBcan be used together in the
same program\fR.
.PP
If you simply want to do a little tweaking of how the tests behave,
you can access the underlying Test::Builder object like so:
.IP "\fBbuilder\fR" 4
.IX Item "builder"
.Vb 1
\&    my $test_builder = Test::More->builder;
.Ve
.Sp
Returns the Test::Builder object underlying Test::More for you to play
with.
.SH "NOTES"
.IX Header "NOTES"
Test::More is \fBexplicitly\fR tested all the way back to perl 5.004.
.PP
Test::More is thread-safe for perl 5.8.0 and up.
.SH "BUGS and CAVEATS"
.IX Header "BUGS and CAVEATS"
.IP "Making your own \fIok()\fR" 4
.IX Item "Making your own ok()"
If you are trying to extend Test::More, don't.  Use Test::Builder
instead.
.IP "The eq_* family has some caveats." 4
.IX Item "The eq_* family has some caveats."
.PD 0
.IP "Test::Harness upgrades" 4
.IX Item "Test::Harness upgrades"
.PD
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
\&\s-1CPAN\s0.  If you avoid no_plan and \s-1TODO\s0 tests, the stock Test::Harness
will work fine.
.Sp
If you simply depend on Test::More, it's own dependencies will cause a
Test::Harness upgrade.
.SH "HISTORY"
.IX Header "HISTORY"
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 \fIok()\fR 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).
.PP
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.  \s-1WYSIWYG\s0.
.SH "SEE ALSO"
.IX Header "SEE ALSO"
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).
.PP
Test::Differences for more ways to test complex data structures.
And it plays well with Test::More.
.PP
Test is the old testing module.  Its main benefit is that it has
been distributed with Perl since 5.004_05.
.PP
Test::Harness for details on how your test results are interpreted
by Perl.
.PP
Test::Unit describes a very featureful unit testing interface.
.PP
Test::Inline shows the idea of embedded testing.
.PP
SelfTest is another approach to embedded testing.
.SH "AUTHORS"
.IX Header "AUTHORS"
Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> with much inspiration
from Joshua Pritikin's Test module and lots of help from Barrie
Slaymaker, Tony Bowden, chromatic and the perl-qa gang.
.SH "COPYRIGHT"
.IX Header "COPYRIGHT"
Copyright 2001 by Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>.
.PP
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
.PP
See \fIhttp://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html\fR