On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Dmitry Karasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's an overkill, I think. I also received lots of PASS, which means that > automated testing works more ofthen than not. I only started receiving fails > generated by YACSmoke, and by YACSmoke only. I suppose there are other testing > frameworks, that do their jobs fine, and of course I'm interested in their > test > output.
There's really two issues here. Testers can use either CPANPLUS or CPAN+CPAN::Reporter. Some CPAN::Reporter testers have written a framework to actually install modules and then throw away the Perl lib directories and untar a clean copy. Those are probably the tests that you're getting PASS reports for. CPAN::Reporter::Smoker doesn't do that -- it lets CPAN use the same PERL5LIB trick with blib, but CPAN::Reporter will discard any FAIL or UNKNOWN report that is missing prerequisites, so you aren't seeing any of those. What I don't understand is why CPANPLUS isn't doing the discard with the Prima dependency not found. > Yes, me too. However I'm fairly sure that rewriting Prima Makefile.PL in order > to use blib is a large task. Also, if the sole reason to do that is to be > compatible with YACSmoke, and no real productivity gain, I don't know, I guess > it would be much more reasonable to fix YACSmoke to do the proper thing > instead. After all, are modules for testers, or testers for modules? The challenge is defining what "do the proper thing" means in a sufficiently general way. Testers are for modules, but since every module is free to do it's own thing, modules need to follow some standard conventions. What I like to see is that for the modules that don't follow conventions, testers at least don't spew useless reports. Let me think about what assumptions CPAN/CPAN plus could make if a blib directory isn't found, which is at least a signal that the convention isn't being followed. -- David
