HOWTO Discussion:Writing BioPerl Tests

• Do we want to change remote DB tests so that BIOPERLDEBUG is only for debugging output (level of verbosity), and BIOPERLNETWORK or similar is used for remote tests?

1. I think having separate variables would make more sense since there are distinct reasons for using each. It would enable things like the user being asked during installation whether they want to run the net tests. Dave Messina 23:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
2. I already have a system in place for the user to say Build.PL --network to run network tests; its just untested and unused. See the commented out section of Build.PL. I'll resolve this into a usable system closer to the next release. Senduran 06:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
3. Sounds good! We can discuss more on the mail list prior to the next release but looks fine to me; suppose we'll make the necessary changes here when needed. As an additional note, while going through the tests I found a few others that required network tests which were not bypassed (OntologyStore.t was one, for instance, which seemded to access remote GO-related stuff). --Chris Fields 11:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• Mauricio indicates Test::Count as a possible way to maintain tests in which the planned count could potentially fluctuate in this thread and this link. --Chris Fields 17:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Nathan has pointed out Test::Exception for testing exception handling in this thread. --Chris Fields 17:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)