Re: "todo" tests in the TAP Plan

[Michael G Schwern]

Adrian Howard wrote:
Maybe this is the right time to think about mechanisms supporting 
different versions of the TAP protocol?


http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/TAP_version

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Salve J Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-07 14:15]:
> Would the metrics for community support channels that were
> suggested a while ago be welcome? (The discussion about them
> sort of died out :-\)

Only if it’s possible for an author to state that this metric is
meaningless. F.ex., I can’t imagine what benefit my Bencode
module would derive from anything beyond the RT queue it already
has.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Michael Peters]

Adam Kennedy wrote:

> It might be an interesting idea to also add a "dependencies_exist"
> metric, that makes sure that all the dependencies that are declared
> actually exist in the CPAN. Dunno, could be of dubiously little value,
> but I just managed to somehow upload something with bad deps that I had
> installed on my local machine, but that weren't all on CPAN yet...

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. There are several examples of modules
that rely on other Perl modules that aren't on CPAN. For instance, svk relies on
SVN::Mirror which is a part of svn. SWISH::HiLiter needs SWISH::API which is a
part of swish-e. There are lots of perl modules tied to various projects that
don't exist independently on CPAN.

-- 
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Salve J Nilsen]

Thomas Klausner wrote:


Oh, and if you want to join the fun and help a bit, here's a (probably
incomplete) list of tasks:

- Metrics:

[snip]

Would the metrics for community support channels that were suggested a while 
ago be welcome? (The discussion about them sort of died out :-\)



- Salve

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Gabor Szabo]

On 9/7/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 9/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 00:51, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>
> > In one module where we had planty of examples I addeded a script that
> > would creata a Module::Name::Examples.pm that is a collection of the
> > example files in pod format. This modules gets installed so the examples
> > are right at hand.
> >
> > I am not sure if this was a good idea but I can think of exapanding it into
> > by adding some code that will split up the pm file to create the example
> > files.
>
> Pod::ToDemo, for example?

Sort of but not exactly.

As I can see in the SDL::Tutorial where Pod::ToDemo is in use,
there can be only one example perl .pm file and the real example is not
in the POD which means I have to duplicate the example in the text of the pod.


Here is the module where we generate a .pm file from the files in the
eg/ directory:
http://search.cpan.org/~ctrondlp/Win32-GuiTest-1_50.5/Examples.pm

Gabor

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[chromatic]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:28, Gabor Szabo wrote:

> On 9/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Pod::ToDemo, for example?
>
> Sort of but not exactly.
>
> As I can see in the SDL::Tutorial where Pod::ToDemo is in use,
> there can be only one example perl .pm file and the real example is not
> in the POD which means I have to duplicate the example in the text of the
> pod.

The first is a genuine limitation, but the second is fixable with a little 
seek on *DATA and flipflop action.

-- c

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Gabor Szabo]

On 9/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thursday 07 September 2006 00:51, Gabor Szabo wrote:

> In one module where we had planty of examples I addeded a script that
> would creata a Module::Name::Examples.pm that is a collection of the
> example files in pod format. This modules gets installed so the examples
> are right at hand.
>
> I am not sure if this was a good idea but I can think of exapanding it into
> by adding some code that will split up the pm file to create the example
> files.

Pod::ToDemo, for example?


Sort of but not exactly.

As I can see in the SDL::Tutorial where Pod::ToDemo is in use,
there can be only one example perl .pm file and the real example is not
in the POD which means I have to duplicate the example in the text of the pod.

Gabor









-- c




--
Gabor Szabo
http://www.szabgab.com/
Perl Training in Israel  http://www.pti.co.il
08-975-2897   054-4624648

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[chromatic]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 00:51, Gabor Szabo wrote:

> In one module where we had planty of examples I addeded a script that
> would creata a Module::Name::Examples.pm  that is a collection of the
> example files in pod format. This modules gets installed so the examples
> are right at hand.
>
> I am not sure if this was a good idea but I can think of exapanding it into
> by adding some code that will split up the pm file to create the example
> files.

Pod::ToDemo, for example?

-- c

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[David Cantrell]

Jonathan Rockway wrote:


I could be wrong here, but I think the check is to make sure that tar
doesn't set +x on Makefile.PL or Build.PL, thus forcing the user to run
the proper version of perl instead of automagically running the perl
that shebang points to.  (Example: Makefile.PL says #!/usr/bin/perl, but
you really want to run /home/jon/blead/bin/perl.  Forcing you to type
this out is "a good thing".)

I personally don't see the value of this, I always run perl Makefile.PL
anyway.


I have two perls on this 'ere machine, one of which I use for general 
scripting and hacking on the machine itself.  That's the first one in 
the path, so is what gets invoked when I say "perl Makefile.PL".  The 
other is in /opt/ and is built the same as the perl on our QA and 
production machines (where it also lives in /opt).  It's what I use for 
writing code that will eventually go live to the public.  Obviously, I 
need different modules for those two cases, and just as obviously, when 
installing a module I need to tell Makefile.PL which perl to install it for.


(actually I have three perls, but one is Debian's own version which I 
never touch)


--
David Cantrell

Re: TAPx::Parser 0.20

[Ovid]

- Original Message 
From: Torsten Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> >From running it against a few test suites and getting some strange
> results, it seems like TAPx::Parser doesn't like lines like
>
>  ok 3 # comment
>
> It flags the corresponding result as being of type "unknown".

Unescaped hash marks are not allowed in test lines unless they begin a TODO or 
SKIP directive.  Can you show the code which is producing this broken output?  
Is it something in Perl, maybe some hand-rolled stuff?

I'll try and see if I can compile the stuff to get the Gtk interface running.  
I'm at a conference right now, though, so I may not have much time for this.

If this works, mind if I include it in the distribution?

Cheers,
Ovid

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Gabor Szabo]

On 9/7/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Examples go in the installed docs or they are lost.

The docs could state that there are some ready-to-run examples in that
dir in the distribution.


In one module where we had planty of examples I addeded a script that
would creata a Module::Name::Examples.pm  that is a collection of the example
files in pod format. This modules gets installed so the examples are
right at hand.

I am not sure if this was a good idea but I can think of exapanding it into by
adding some code that will split up the pm file to create the example files.


Gabor

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Thomas Klausner]

Hi!

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 10:23:39AM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
 
> >- has_example
> 
> I thought we were generally negative on this one, because it would 
> encourage people to spuriously add trivial example directories to their 
> distributions...

Yes, but I've recently introduced the concept of 'optional' metrics.
Optional metrics are not used to calculate an authors rank in the CPANTS
game. Current optional metrics are 'is_prereq' and 'has_examples'.

This also makes it possible to get 110% kwalitee at the moment :-)

> As a secondary point, if we keep it you might also want to include 
> /sample(s)/ and /demo(s)/.

Thanks, added

> >  - declares_dependencies
> 
> It might be an interesting idea to also add a "dependencies_exist" 
> metric, that makes sure that all the dependencies that are declared 
> actually exist in the CPAN. Dunno, could be of dubiously little value, 
> but I just managed to somehow upload something with bad deps that I had 
> installed on my local machine, but that weren't all on CPAN yet...

It might also catch possible CPANTS bugs.

> >  - no_open_bugs
> 
> If we are going to do this, we have to make sure that we DON'T include 
> wishlist bugs in this metric, or it blows the validity all to hell.

I was thinking of something like 'no open bugs with severity > wishlist
(or even unimportant) and more than two weeks old'.

'Taken' bug reports are obviously also not counted.


> >  - Signature checking ?
> 
> I looked into this a bit more recently, with all the Module::Signature 
> changes. I think this is a bad idea.
> ..

I agree
 
> >  - has_rating ?
> 
> Bad idea I think as well, because it will encourage spurious ratings. 
> This is the same reason that ratings aren't factored into the 
> search.cpan result order. CPAN Ratings currently has most of it's value 
> because it doesn't matter much, and so it encourages high quality reviews.

I also do not really like this metirc, I just wrote it down because it
was suggested some time ago.

 

-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl   http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}

Re: post-YAPC::Europe CPANTS news

[Thomas Klausner]

Hi!

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:28:56PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Thanks for the updates, Thomas.  And now on with the complaining!

:-)

> >- has_example
> >  An optional metric that checks if the author included a dir called
> >  'eg|ex|example(s?)' which in turn includes at least on *.pl
> 
> IMO examples in an example directory are a detriment, not a bonus.

The one advantage of dedicated examples for me is that I can take that
example file (mostly downloaded from search.cpan.org), run it, modifiy
it, run it etc.

This hardly works with code embedded in the docs, as this code tends to
be overly verbose (eg no 'use strict' etc).

In fact I was only made aware of 'examples' during the discussion here a
while ago. I used examples several times since, as a first step to get
used to a distribution.

So I think they are valuable.
 
> Examples go in the installed docs or they are lost.

The docs could state that there are some ready-to-run examples in that
dir in the distribution.

> Additionally, if you're going to keep this thing around, restricting the 
> examples to .pl files penalizes HTML (Mason or other templating system), 
> POD and module examples. [1]  It would be best to just say that the 
> directory contains something.

You're right (and several other people that suggested that). I'll change
it in the next run.


-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl   http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}

Re: "todo" tests in the TAP Plan

[Adrian Howard]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 14:33, Ovid wrote:


- Original Message 
From: Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hmm, that's curious. However, if it's undocumented I would argue  
against

supporting it right now.  What benefit does it gain us?


This comes from the Good Old Test.pm module:

$ perl -MTest -e 'plan tests => 10, todo => [2,4];'
1..10 todo 2 4;

As there are quite some test scripts out there that use it, staying
compatible with it sounds like a prerequisite.


Ah, crud.  I need to support it then.  Bummer.  I'll try to get a  
release out there when I can, then.


Maybe this is the right time to think about mechanisms supporting  
different versions of the TAP protocol?


Adrian