CPAN testers clients are supposed to detect missing prereqs and not submit reports.
Someone needs to investigate why in this case only configure_requires were picked up in the PREREQUISITES section by CPAN::Reporter. David On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 July 2016 at 09:05, Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org> wrote: > > > > Hopefully there is enough information in these reports to diagnose the > root > > issue; if not, no doubt the collective wisdom exists on this list. thank > > you! > > > +1 > > These seriously broken smoker setups degrade the overall quality of > the CPAN Testers network very quickly, mostly because its non-trivial > to isolate these spurious failures from legitimate failures that have > to be fixed. > > If these failures are indicative of some broken CPAN tooling, I'm all > for somebody working out what that is and fixing it. > > But in the meantime, these are just noise :/ > > Ideally the CPAN Testers system should be smart enough to categorise > failures like this differently so we can handle them more effectively, > but that is harder than fixing the problem at its root. > > For instance, maybe we could find some simple rules that marked a > failure as "suspicious" if it can be determined that items in META.* > were not satisfied. > > Or at very least, we should have some sort of system to mark smokers > known to be "broken" automatically as "suspicious" until the smoker > can be deemed "unbroken". > > After all, what is actually stopping somebody from writing tooling > that abuses the CPAN reporters infrastructure to create entirely bogus > failure reports, with the content being some religious proselyting? > > -- > Kent > > KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL > -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
