On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:48:51PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:47:18PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > On Wed 28 Apr 2004 14:05, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:14:03PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:25:45PM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] but I have found a little time to make > > > > Devel::Cover a little more robust and to update the cpancover data. > > > > > > > > http://pjcj.sytes.net/cpancover/ > > > > > > Excellent. Thanks. [CC'd to dbi-dev] > > > > > > I see you have some DBD's in there but only DBD::CSV produced coverage > > > data:
I don't think I have any databases installed on the machine I used for the coverage runs. I suspect that will hinder the running of the tests. > > > DBD-CSV-0.2002 83.73 58.91 45.45 95.56 n/a 73.31 > > > DBD-ODBC-1.09 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a > > > DBD-Oracle-1.15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a > > > DBD-Pg-1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a > > > DBD-mysql-2.9003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a > > > DBI-1.42 73.01 52.70 43.55 82.44 48.78 64.55 > > > > Since you seem to value D::C, I gave it a try > > Since it's the best coverage tool we have, and coverage tools are > useful, it seems wise to encourage more use so that more people can > benefit and bugs can be found and fixed. > > > lep a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/DBD-Unify-0.40 117 > echo $PERL5LIB > > /pro/asql/v82BC/lib/perl:/pro/3gl/CPAN/Devel-Cover-0.40/blib/lib:/pro/3gl/CPAN/Devel-Cover-0.40/blib/arch > > lep a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/DBD-Unify-0.40 118 > env HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MDevel::Cover > > make test > > /pro/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', > > 'blib/arch')" t/*.t > > t/01-base.........dubious > > Test returned status 0 (wstat 138, 0x8a) > > test program seems to have generated a core > > > > Ohhh dear :( > > I'd guess that Paul would appreciate a stack dump (and any other > assistance you might be able to offer). Actually, I'm pretty sure (ha!) that that will be fixed in the next release. That's the "little more robust" part of the earlier message. I knew I should have made the release before saying _anything_. I didn't predict this leak though ;-) Hopefully I'll do the release tonight, and then I'd be glad of any failure reports. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
