manpagez: man pages & more
man Test::More(3)
Home | html | info | man
Test::More(3pm)        Perl Programmers Reference Guide        Test::More(3pm)


       Test::More - yet another framework for writing test scripts


         use Test::More tests => 23;
         # or
         use Test::More skip_all => $reason;
         # or
         use Test::More;   # see done_testing()

         require_ok( 'Some::Module' );

         # Various ways to say "ok"
         ok($got eq $expected, $test_name);

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

         # Rather than print STDERR "# here's what went wrong\n"
         diag("here's what went wrong");

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

         cmp_ok($got, '==', $expected, $test_name);

         is_deeply($got_complex_structure, $expected_complex_structure, $test_name);

         SKIP: {
             skip $why, $how_many unless $have_some_feature;

             ok( foo(),       $test_name );
             is( foo(42), 23, $test_name );

         TODO: {
             local $TODO = $why;

             ok( foo(),       $test_name );
             is( foo(42), 23, $test_name );

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



         # UNIMPLEMENTED!!!
         my @status = Test::More::status;


       STOP! If you're just getting started writing tests, have a look at
       Test::Simple first.  This is a drop in replacement for Test::Simple
       which you can switch to once you get the hang of basic testing.

       The purpose of this module is to provide a wide range of testing
       utilities.  Various ways to say "ok" with better diagnostics,
       facilities to skip tests, test future features and compare complicated
       data structures.  While you can do almost anything with a simple "ok()"
       function, it doesn't provide good diagnostic output.

   I love it when a plan comes together
       Before anything else, you need a testing plan.  This basically declares
       how many tests your script is going to run to protect against premature

       The preferred way to do this is to declare a plan when you "use

         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

       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;


           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
       By convention, each test is assigned a number in order.  This is
       largely done automatically for you.  However, it's often very useful to
       assign a name to each test.  Which would you rather see:

         ok 4
         not ok 5
         ok 6


         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

       All test functions take a name argument.  It's optional, but highly
       suggested that you use it.

   I'm ok, you're not ok.
       The basic purpose of this module is to print out either "ok #" or "not
       ok #" depending on if a given test succeeded or failed.  Everything
       else is just gravy.

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

           Similar to "ok()", "like()" matches $got against the regex

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

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

             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' );

           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($module, @methods);
             can_ok($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') &&

           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($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

               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').

             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 $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

           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.

             ok 1 - First test
                 # Subtest: An example subtest
                 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';

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

               sub my_subtest {
                   my $range = shift;

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


           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
       Sometimes you want to test if a module, or a list of modules, can
       successfully load.  For example, you'll often want a first test which
       simply loads all the modules in the distribution to make sure they work
       before going on to do more complicated testing.

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


           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

           No exception will be thrown if the load fails.

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

               # require "Some/";
               require_ok "Some/";

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

              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

              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 {

                  ...some code that depends on the use...
                  ...happening at compile time...

           because the notion of "compile-time" is relative.  Instead, you

             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
       Not everything is a simple eq check or regex.  There are times you need
       to see if two data structures are equivalent.  For these instances
       Test::More provides a handful of useful functions.

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

             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

           "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.

       If you pick the right test function, you'll usually get a good idea of
       what went wrong when it failed.  But sometimes it doesn't work out that
       way.  So here we have ways for you to write your own diagnostic
       messages which are safer than just "print STDERR".


           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

           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.


           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

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

               note("Tempfile is $tempfile");

             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;


               note explain \%args;

   Conditional tests
       Sometimes running a test under certain conditions will cause the test
       script to die.  A certain function or method isn't implemented (such as
       "fork()" on MacOS), some resource isn't available (like a net
       connection) or a module isn't available.  In these cases it's necessary
       to skip tests, or declare that they are supposed to fail but will work
       in the future (a todo test).

       For more details on the mechanics of skip and todo tests see

       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

               TODO: {
                   local $TODO = "URI::Geller not finished";

                   my $card = "Eight of clubs";
                   is( URI::Geller->your_card, $card, 'Is THIS your card?' );

                   my $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 it's 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.

               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

   Test control

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

           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
       The use of the following functions is discouraged as they are not
       actually testing functions and produce no diagnostics to help figure
       out what went wrong.  They were written before "is_deeply()" existed
       because I couldn't figure out how to display a useful diff of two
       arbitrary data structures.

       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.

             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.

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

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

             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
       Sometimes the Test::More interface isn't quite enough.  Fortunately,
       Test::More is built on top of Test::Builder which provides a single,
       unified backend for any test library to use.  This means two test
       libraries which both use <Test::Builder> can be used together in the
       same program>.

       If you simply want to do a little tweaking of how the tests behave, you
       can access the underlying Test::Builder object like so:

               my $test_builder = Test::More->builder;

           Returns the Test::Builder object underlying Test::More for you to
           play with.


       If all your tests passed, Test::Builder will exit with zero (which is
       normal).  If anything failed it will exit with how many failed.  If you
       run less (or more) tests than you planned, the missing (or extras) will
       be considered failures.  If no tests were ever run Test::Builder will
       throw a warning and exit with 255.  If the test died, even after having
       successfully completed all its tests, it will still be considered a
       failure and will exit with 255.

       So the exit codes are...

           0                   all tests successful
           255                 test died or all passed but wrong # of tests run
           any other number    how many failed (including missing or extras)

       If you fail more than 254 tests, it will be reported as 254.

       NOTE  This behavior may go away in future versions.


       Test::More works with Perls as old as 5.8.1.

       Thread support is not very reliable before 5.10.1, but that's because
       threads are not very reliable before 5.10.1.

       Although Test::More has been a core module in versions of Perl since
       5.6.2, Test::More has evolved since then, and not all of the features
       you're used to will be present in the shipped version of Test::More. If
       you are writing a module, don't forget to indicate in your package
       metadata the minimum version of Test::More that you require. For
       instance, if you want to use "done_testing()" but want your test script
       to run on Perl 5.10.0, you will need to explicitly require Test::More >

       Key feature milestones include:

           Subtests were released in Test::More 0.94, which came with Perl
           5.12.0. Subtests did not implicitly call "done_testing()" until
           0.96; the first Perl with that fix was Perl 5.14.0 with 0.98.

           This was released in Test::More 0.88 and first shipped with Perl in
           5.10.1 as part of Test::More 0.92.

           Although "cmp_ok()" was introduced in 0.40, 0.86 fixed an important
           bug to make it safe for overloaded objects; the fixed first shipped
           with Perl in 5.10.1 as part of Test::More 0.92.

       "new_ok()" "note()" and "explain()"
           These were was released in Test::More 0.82, and first shipped with
           Perl in 5.10.1 as part of Test::More 0.92.

       There is a full version history in the Changes file, and the Test::More
       versions included as core can be found using Module::CoreList:

           $ corelist -a Test::More


       utf8 / "Wide character in print"
           If you use utf8 or other non-ASCII characters with Test::More you
           might get a "Wide character in print" warning.  Using "binmode
           STDOUT, ":utf8"" will not fix it.  Test::Builder (which powers
           Test::More) duplicates STDOUT and STDERR.  So any changes to them,
           including changing their output disciplines, will not be seem by

           One work around is to apply encodings to STDOUT and STDERR as early
           as possible and before Test::More (or any other Test module) loads.

               use open ':std', ':encoding(utf8)';
               use Test::More;

           A more direct work around is to change the filehandles used by

               my $builder = Test::More->builder;
               binmode $builder->output,         ":encoding(utf8)";
               binmode $builder->failure_output, ":encoding(utf8)";
               binmode $builder->todo_output,    ":encoding(utf8)";

       Overloaded objects
           String overloaded objects are compared as strings (or in
           "cmp_ok()"'s case, strings or numbers as appropriate to the
           comparison op).  This prevents Test::More from piercing an object's
           interface allowing better blackbox testing.  So if a function
           starts returning overloaded objects instead of bare strings your
           tests won't notice the difference.  This is good.

           However, it does mean that functions like "is_deeply()" cannot be
           used to test the internals of string overloaded objects.  In this
           case I would suggest Test::Deep which contains more flexible
           testing functions for complex data structures.

           Test::More will only be aware of threads if "use threads" has been
           done before Test::More is loaded.  This is ok:

               use threads;
               use Test::More;

           This may cause problems:

               use Test::More
               use threads;

           5.8.1 and above are supported.  Anything below that has too many


       This is a case of convergent evolution with Joshua Pritikin's Test
       module.  I was largely unaware of its existence when I'd first written
       my own "ok()" routines.  This module exists because I can't figure out
       how to easily wedge test names into Test's interface (along with a few
       other problems).

       The goal here is to have a testing utility that's simple to learn,
       quick to use and difficult to trip yourself up with while still
       providing more flexibility than the existing  As such, the
       names of the most common routines are kept tiny, special cases and
       magic side-effects are kept to a minimum.  WYSIWYG.


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

       Fennec The Fennec framework is a testers toolbox. It uses Test::Builder
       under the hood. It brings enhancements for forking, defining state, and
       mocking. Fennec enhances several modules to work better together than
       they would if you loaded them individually on your own.

       Fennec::Declare Provides enhanced (Devel::Declare) syntax for Fennec.

       Test::Differences for more ways to test complex data structures.  And
       it plays well with Test::More.

       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

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

       Test::Harness is the test runner and output interpreter for Perl.  It's
       the thing that powers "make test" and where the "prove" utility comes

       Test::Most Most commonly needed test functions and features.


       Michael G Schwern <> with much inspiration from Joshua
       Pritikin's Test module and lots of help from Barrie Slaymaker, Tony
       Bowden,, chromatic, Fergal Daly and the perl-qa gang.


       Chad Granum <>


       See to report and view


       The source code repository for Test::More can be found at


       Copyright 2001-2008 by Michael G Schwern <>.

       This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
       under the same terms as Perl itself.


perl v5.26.1                      2017-07-18                   Test::More(3pm)

perl 5.26.1 - Generated Mon Nov 6 19:06:10 CST 2017
© 2000-2018
Individual documents may contain additional copyright information.