[Bioperl-l] New testing base: BioperlTest.pm

Sendu Bala bix at sendu.me.uk
Mon Jun 25 09:45:23 EDT 2007


Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> I should think the benefits are obvious, especially for the output
>> files, which thanks to inconsistency of using END blocks correctly or at
>> all, leaves some output data behind on occasion.
> 
> Sounds fine by me, though it's a lot of work.  BTW, did we ever decide 
> whether to finish up with Test::More conversion?  I haven't heard back 
> yet; let me know what you want to do.

I'm doing the remaining Test::More conversions at the same time.


> Do test_input_file() and test_input_file() handle directory structures 
> in an OS-safe way like catfile()?  For instance, I plan on adding test 
> data to a new directory similar to Bio::Graphics (t/data/eutil) to 
> prevent cluttering of the t/data directory.  I could use 
> '$obj->new(-file => test_input_file('/eutil/input.xml'))' if the base 
> directory is 't/data' but that may not be cross-platform compatible with 
> win32 file systems, which may still expect something like 
> 't\data\eutil\input.xml'.

Its platform-independent, currently implemented using File::Spec. So 
you'll say:

$obj->new(-file => test_input_file('eutil', 'input.xml'));

Its all documented in the POD of BioperlTest.



More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list