Manual
Test::TypeTiny
This is a module for testing that types you've defined accept and reject the values you think they should.
should_pass($value, $type); should_fail($othervalue, $type);
Easy. (But yeah, I always forget whether the type goes first or second!)
There's also a function to test that subtype/supertype relationships are working okay.
ok_subtype($type, @subtypes);
Of course you can just check a type like this:
ok( $type->check($value) );
But the advantage of should_pass
is that if the EXTENDED_TESTING
environment variable is set to true, should_pass
will also perform a strict check on the value, which involves climbing up the type's inheritance tree (its parent, its parent's parent, etc) to make sure the value passes all their constraints.
If a normal check and strict check differ, this is usually a problem in the inlining code somewhere.
See Test::TypeTiny for more information.
Type::Tiny as a Replacement for Test::Deep
Here's one of the examples from the Test::Deep documentation:
my $name_re = re('^(Mr|Mrs|Miss) \w+ \w+$'); cmp_deeply( $person, { Name => $name_re, Phone => re('^0d{6}$'), ChildNames => array_each($name_re) }, "person ok" );
It's pretty easy to rewrite this to use Types::Standard:
my $name = StrMatch[ qr/^(Mr|Mrs|Miss) \w+ \w+$/ ]; should_pass( $person, Dict[ Name => $name, Phone => StrMatch[ qr/^0d{6}$/ ], ChildNames => ArrayRef[$name] ] );
There's nothing especially wrong with Test::Deep, but if you're already familiar with Type::Tiny's built-in types and you've maybe written your own type libraries too, it will save you having to switch between using two separate systems of checks.
Here's your next step:
- Type::Tiny::Manual::Params
Advanced information on Type::Params, and using Type::Tiny with other signature modules like Function::Parameters and Kavorka.