On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:22 PM, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Roode wrote: [...] >> I see several erroneous FAIL reports for modules of mine, and I think >> it's unfair that it appears as though my module(s) have failures or >> outstanding bugs. > > I wouldn't worry about the apparent unfairness of it. People who care enough > to look at the eventual errors reported against a module are sufficiently > intelligent to determine whether or not the error applies to them.
I dunno. I think a lot of people simply look at the PASS(17) FAIL(4) line. [...] >> On the first line above, we see that the tester is not sending a test >> report to the author (me). Why? On the fourth line above, we see > > Because if there's one thing that makes an author even more irate that > finding out that their module failed on someone else's setup, it's having > their nose rubbed in the fact and having their inbox spammed. We stopped > doing that a long time ago. No! Spam me, spam me! :-) I don't care about every PASS, but I do care about the FAILs. I do pay attention to them, and I do fix reported bugs. CPAN-testers is one of the best things about the Perl community -- my modules get tested in ways I never could test. [..] >> The sad thing is that these erroneous test results make it appear as >> though my module has unresolved problems. I've been searching the web >> for the past hour or two, and I can find no information about how to >> contest a cpan-testers result, or to get an erroneous FAIL result >> removed from my module's record. > > Relax, no-one will think any less of your modules simply because they > acquire a couple of FAIL reports. The more complex a module is, the more > likely it is to fail somewhere. Yeah, I suppose... I do try to hold myself to a higher standard, though. (As a point of reference, one of my modules has over 600 PASSes and no FAILs). [...] > If you heed the advice given in the other replies, you should be able to > improve the successful testing of your module. In that case, you just have > to release a new version! Releasing a new version is no problem :-) Thanks for your input, David, I appreciate it! -- Eric
