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

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Mon Jun 25 09:49:51 EDT 2007


On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:

> 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.

Okay.  Just didn't want to do any redundant work if it's already  
being/been done.

>> 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.

yay!

chris


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list