I love it when a plan comes together

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

  use Test::More tests => 23;

There are cases when you will not know beforehand how many tests your script is going to run. In this case, you can declare your tests at the end.

  use Test::More;

  ... run your tests ...

  done_testing( $number_of_tests_run );

NOTE "done_testing()" should never be called in an "END { ... }" block.

Sometimes you really don't know how many tests were run, or it's too difficult to calculate. In which case you can leave off $number_of_tests_run.

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;
  }

done_testing

    done_testing();
    done_testing($number_of_tests);
    

If you don't know how many tests you're going to run, you can issue the plan when you're done running tests.

$number_of_tests is the same as "plan()", it's the number of tests you expected to run. You can omit this, in which case the number of tests you ran doesn't matter, just the fact that your tests ran to conclusion.

This is safer than and replaces the "no_plan" plan.

Note: You must never put "done_testing()" inside an "END { ... }" block. The plan is there to ensure your test does not exit before testing has completed. If you use an END block you completely bypass this protection.

Test names

  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.

I'm ok, you're not ok.

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($got eq $expected, $test_name);
    

This simply evaluates any expression ("$got eq $expected" 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),      'all items defined' );
    

(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. $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 'sufficient mucus'
    #   in foo.t at line 42.
    

This is the same as Test::Simple's "ok()" routine.

is

isnt

  is  ( $got, $expected, $test_name );
  isnt( $got, $expected, $test_name );
    

Similar to "ok()", "is()" and "isnt()" compare their two arguments with "eq" and "ne" 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" );
    

"undef" will only ever match "undef". So you can test a value against "undef" like this:

    is($not_defined, undef, "undefined as expected");
    

(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 'Is foo the same as bar?'
    #   in 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 "exists $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' );
    

A simple call to "isnt()" usually does not provide a strong test but there are cases when you cannot say much more about a value than that it is different from some other value:

  new_ok $obj, "Foo";

  my $clone = $obj->clone;
  isa_ok $obj, "Foo", "Foo->clone";

  isnt $obj, $clone, "clone() produces a different object";
    

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

like

  like( $got, qr/expected/, $test_name );
    

Similar to "ok()", "like()" matches $got against the regex "qr/expected/".

So this:

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

is similar to:

    ok( $got =~ m/expected/, '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. "qr//") or (for better compatibility with older perls) as a string that looks like a regex (alternative delimiters are currently not supported):

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

Regex options may be placed on the end ('/expected/i').

Its advantages over "ok()" are similar to that of "is()" and "isnt()". Better diagnostics on failure.

unlike

  unlike( $got, qr/expected/, $test_name );
    

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

cmp_ok

  cmp_ok( $got, $op, $expected, $test_name );
    

Halfway between "ok()" and "is()" lies "cmp_ok()". This allows you to compare two arguments using any binary perl operator. The test passes if the comparison is true and fails otherwise.

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

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

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

Its advantage over "ok()" is when the test fails you'll know what $got and $expected were:

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

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

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

It's especially useful when comparing greater-than or smaller-than relation between values:

    cmp_ok( $some_value, '<=', $upper_limit );
    

can_ok

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

Checks to make sure the $module or $object can do these @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 @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, $object_name);
  isa_ok($subclass, $class, $object_name);
  isa_ok($ref,      $type,  $ref_name);
    

Checks to see if the given "$object->isa($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.

You can also test a class, to make sure that it has the right ancestor:

    isa_ok( 'Vole', 'Rodent' );
    

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 $object_name (for example 'Test customer').

new_ok

  my $obj = new_ok( $class );
  my $obj = new_ok( $class => \@args );
  my $obj = new_ok( $class => \@args, $object_name );
    

A convenience function which combines creating an object and calling "isa_ok()" on that object.

It is basically equivalent to:

    my $obj = $class->new(@args);
    isa_ok $obj, $class, $object_name;
    

If @args is not given, an empty list will be used.

This function only works on "new()" and it assumes "new()" will return just a single object which isa $class.

subtest

    subtest $name => \&code, @args;
    

"subtest()" runs the &code as its own little test with its own plan and its own result. The main test counts this as a single test using the result of the whole subtest to determine if its ok or not ok.

For example...

  use Test::More tests => 3;
 
  pass("First test");

  subtest 'An example subtest' => sub {
      plan tests => 2;

      pass("This is a subtest");
      pass("So is this");
  };

  pass("Third test");
    

This would produce.

  1..3
  ok 1 - First test
      # Subtest: An example subtest
      1..2
      ok 1 - This is a subtest
      ok 2 - So is this
  ok 2 - An example subtest
  ok 3 - Third test
    

A subtest may call "skip_all". No tests will be run, but the subtest is considered a skip.

  subtest 'skippy' => sub {
      plan skip_all => 'cuz I said so';
      pass('this test will never be run');
  };
    

Returns true if the subtest passed, false otherwise.

Due to how subtests work, you may omit a plan if you desire. This adds an implicit "done_testing()" to the end of your subtest. The following two subtests are equivalent:

  subtest 'subtest with implicit done_testing()', sub {
      ok 1, 'subtests with an implicit done testing should work';
      ok 1, '... and support more than one test';
      ok 1, '... no matter how many tests are run';
  };

  subtest 'subtest with explicit done_testing()', sub {
      ok 1, 'subtests with an explicit done testing should work';
      ok 1, '... and support more than one test';
      ok 1, '... no matter how many tests are run';
      done_testing();
  };
    

Extra arguments given to "subtest" are passed to the callback. For example:

    sub my_subtest {
        my $range = shift;
        ...
    }

    for my $range (1, 10, 100, 1000) {
        subtest "testing range $range", \&my_subtest, $range;
    }
    

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.

Module tests

For such purposes we have "use_ok" and "require_ok".

require_ok

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

Tries to "require" the given $module or $file. If it loads successfully, the test will pass. Otherwise it fails and displays the load error.

"require_ok" will guess whether the input is a module name or a filename.

No exception will be thrown if the load fails.

    # require Some::Module
    require_ok "Some::Module";

    # require "Some/File.pl";
    require_ok "Some/File.pl";

    # stop testing if any of your modules will not load
    for my $module (@module) {
        require_ok $module or BAIL_OUT "Can't load $module";
    }
    

use_ok

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

Like "require_ok", but it will "use" the $module in question and only loads modules, not files.

If you just want to test a module can be loaded, use "require_ok".

If you just want to load a module in a test, we recommend simply using "use" directly. It will cause the test to stop.

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 @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... }
    

If you want the equivalent of "use Foo ()", use a module but not import anything, use "require_ok".

  BEGIN { require_ok "Foo" }
    

Complex data structures

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

is_deeply

  is_deeply( $got, $expected, $test_name );
    

Similar to "is()", except that if $got and $expected are 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.

"is_deeply()" compares the dereferenced values of references, the references themselves (except for their type) are ignored. This means aspects such as blessing and ties are not considered "different".

"is_deeply()" currently has very limited handling of function reference and globs. It merely checks if they have the same referent. This may improve in the future.

Test::Differences and Test::Deep provide more in-depth functionality along these lines.

NOTE is_deeply() has limitations when it comes to comparing strings and refs:

    my $path = path('.');
    my $hash = {};
    is_deeply( $path, "$path" ); # ok
    is_deeply( $hash, "$hash" ); # fail
    

This happens because is_deeply will unoverload all arguments unconditionally. It is probably best not to use is_deeply with overloading. For legacy reasons this is not likely to ever be fixed. If you would like a much better tool for this you should see Test2::Suite Specifically Test2::Tools::Compare has an "is()" function that works like "is_deeply" with many improvements.

Diagnostics

diag

  diag(@diagnostic_message);
    

Prints a diagnostic message which is guaranteed not to interfere with test output. Like "print" @diagnostic_message is simply concatenated together.

Returns false, so as to preserve failure.

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 'There's a foo user'
    #   in foo.t at line 52.
    # Since there's no foo, check that /etc/bar is set up right.
    

You might remember "ok() or diag()" with the mnemonic "open() or die()".

NOTE The exact formatting of the diagnostic output is still changing, but it is guaranteed that whatever you throw at it won't interfere with the test.

note

  note(@diagnostic_message);
    

Like "diag()", except the message will not be seen when the test is run in a harness. It will only be visible in the verbose TAP stream.

Handy for putting in notes which might be useful for debugging, but don't indicate a problem.

    note("Tempfile is $tempfile");
    

explain

  my @dump = explain @diagnostic_message;
    

Will dump the contents of any references in a human readable format. Usually you want to pass this into "note" or "diag".

Handy for things like...

    is_deeply($have, $want) || diag explain $have;
    

or

    note explain \%args;
    Some::Class->method(%args);
    

Conditional tests

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, $how_many tests there are, $why and under what $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 $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 "no_plan" $how_many is optional and will default to 1.

It's perfectly safe to nest SKIP blocks. Each SKIP block must have the label "SKIP", 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 $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 that it is 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 that, if you leave $TODO unset or undef, Test::More reports failures as normal. This can be useful to mark the tests as expected to fail only in certain conditions, e.g.:

    TODO: {
        local $TODO = "$^O doesn't work yet. :(" if !_os_is_supported($^O);

        ...
    }
    

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 "eval BLOCK" with and using "alarm". In these extreme cases you have no choice but to skip over the broken tests entirely.

The syntax and behavior is similar to a "SKIP: 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).

Test control

BAIL_OUT

    BAIL_OUT($reason);
    

Indicates to the harness that things are going so badly all testing should terminate. This includes the running of any additional test scripts.

This is typically used when testing cannot continue such as a critical module failing to compile or a necessary external utility not being available such as a database connection failing.

The test will exit with 255.

For even better control look at Test::Most.

Discouraged comparison functions

These functions are usually used inside an "ok()".

    ok( eq_array(\@got, \@expected) );

"is_deeply()" can do that better and with diagnostics.

    is_deeply( \@got, \@expected );

They may be deprecated in future versions.

eq_array

  my $is_eq = eq_array(\@got, \@expected);
    

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

eq_hash

  my $is_eq = eq_hash(\%got, \%expected);
    

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

eq_set

  my $is_eq = eq_set(\@got, \@expected);
    

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.

    ok( eq_set(\@got, \@expected) );
    

Is better written:

    is_deeply( [sort @got], [sort @expected] );
    

NOTE By historical accident, this is not a true set comparison. While the order of elements does not matter, duplicate elements do.

NOTE "eq_set()" does not know how to deal with references at the top level. The following is an example of a comparison which might not work:

    eq_set([\1, \2], [\2, \1]);
    

Test::Deep contains much better set comparison functions.

Extending and Embedding Test::More

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.

ALTERNATIVES

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::Legacy tests written with Test.pm, the original testing module, do not play well with other testing libraries. Test::Legacy emulates the Test.pm interface and does play well with others.

ADDITIONAL LIBRARIES

Test::Class is like xUnit but more perlish.

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

Test::Inline shows the idea of embedded testing.

Mock::Quick The ultimate mocking library. Easily spawn objects defined on the fly. Can also override, block, or reimplement packages as needed.

Test::FixtureBuilder Quickly define fixture data for unit tests.

OTHER COMPONENTS

BUNDLES