On 2001.11.19, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/cgi-bin/perl-qa-wiki.cgi?UntestedModules
Since there is a huge, practical, difference between "Having stuff in t/*" and "Tested well enough that it's darn near impossible to break the code without seeing a failing test." Now, "Having stuff in t/*" is probably better than nothing at all, and I'm not saying otherwise. However, for those modules that haven't acheived the state of near-invincibility, I motion we create: http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/cgi-bin/perl-qa-wiki.cgi?PoorlyTestedModules (I'd create it myself, but at the moment the wiki seems to be having trouble.) Just a thought. - Ryan King P.S.: Let's say a bug is introduced into a CPAN module and a test doesn't catch it. After the bug is finally discovered, is a test generally written to prevent that bug (and the bug's whole species)? ("Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.") I don't know enough about CPAN to say, but is there any way we can watch the list of bugs and fixes to make sure we follow up with tests when the individual authors don't? If this has long been taken care of, sorry for the FAQ.
