On 8/17/07, brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adriano > Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Testing some Author stuff would be rarer than having author tests. So > > maybe we could standardize on something like "t/author" and when other > > value is desirable, a key/value pair may be specified in META.yml (and > > in Makefile.PL/Build.PL). > > ...smells a lot like Test::Manifest, which is just test. In > t/test_manifest, you just list the files that you want. Optionally, you > can set a test level and mark some tests only happening at certain > levels. > > In some cases, I even auto-generate the t/test_manifest so it only has > the files that I want to test in that situation. Other than > "t/test_manifest", I don't worry about magical names or changing all > the tools for yet more special cases. >
It makes a lot of sense. Patterns such as t/*.t , t/**/*.t " t/**/*.t minus t/author/*.t " helps a quick startup, but it looks like a good idea to have an automated tool to expand this into longer and explicit lists of tests. From then on, additions may be manual like some usually do with MANIFEST. (Even though there is "make manifest", you may not like the way it works because you have a bunch of files which you don't to get shipped in the distribution.) The only drawback is redundant information: there are the tests and the list of tests. Keeping tests in "t/" with some fine way to discover what they are good for (according to Chris' idea) may be promising if not too magical.
