Testing "script-level" code

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Dave Brannan 1 week, 3 days ago.

  • Author
  • #81298

    Dave Brannan


    What is everyone's approach to testing a script (i.e. a self-contained ps1 that contains parameters, functions, and code)? Rather than a module that contains a function per file.

    Basically same as https://github.com/pester/Pester/issues/21

    Would you always refactor to a module, or extract a function definition out of the script file (to avoid dot-sourcing?)


  • #81311

    Dave Brannan

    To answer my own question, I've found a post by Jakub with possible solutions.


    Not sure if Pester 4.0 has any other solutions?

  • #81478

    Adam Bertram

    Unfortunately, there is no good way to do it. Pester loves functions and if your code is broken up into functions, it makes your code not only cleaner but easier to test.

    Before you spend too much time trying to get this to work I'd first look to see if you can split out that script into multiple functions and then write tests for those.

    • #81484

      Dave Brannan

      I've gone with the UnderTest switch for now. Problem is it's not my code and I'm fine with recommending it gets re-factored, but hoped there might now be an easier way to extract a function (for example).

      Thanks for the reply Adam.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.