Re: recursive_test_files in Module::Build and in ExtUtils::MakeMaker
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/2/06, Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not an EU::MM bug -- it's a new M::B feature. What should you do? You're not going to like this answer: Don't use recursive test directories. :-) Does Test::Manifest support nested test files? If so, that might be an alternative. I'm not sure what nested means, but Test::Manifest just takes a list of files in t/test_manifest and passes them to run_all_tests. You can put whatever you like in test_manifest, although all pathnames are relative to t/. I have thought about a `make testmanifest` that would work like `make manifest`, but I haven't really needed it. If I have a lot of files, I just : $ find . -name *.t test_manifest I think the latest version of Test::Manifest has support for primitive #include like behavior, so the test_manifest might reference other files that include other lists of tests, recursively. If it's not on CPAN, I'll have to take my local copy and upload it.
Re: Integrating Test::Run into an ExtUtils::MakeMaker+Test::Manifest Setup
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See http://xrl.us/sw5o for a recipe for integrating make runtest and make distruntest targets into a Makefile.PL-generated Makefile that makes use of Test::Manifest. That Test::Manifest stuff in XML::RSS is old. Instead, you can just say: eval use Test::Manifest 1.14; However, if you are doing odd test things, you probably don't want to use Test::Manifest. Just write your own thing to run the tests.
Re: CPAN code searches
Michael G Schwern writes: A few people have asked how I do my CPAN scans. I keep a minicpan handy and have a little script called grep_cpan ... http://schwern.org/src/grep_cpan 404. But this works: http://www.schwern.org/~schwern/src/grep_cpan Smylers
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We might as well encourage people to change to the current spec. Chris -- Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 vCard: http://www.chrisdolan.net/ChrisDolan.vcf Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): Aha, since I have your attention... I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and worst reports pages: This distributions got the most Kwalitee: -- These distributions have the most Kwalitee This distributions got the least Kwalitee: -- These distributions have the least Kwalitee Question: how are the dists sorted on the /author/CPANID page? David -- Much of the propaganda that passes for news in our own society is given to immobilising and pacifying people and diverting them from the idea that they can confront power. -- John Pilger
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Chris Dolan wrote: On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We might as well encourage people to change to the current spec. Chris I don't agree... unless all of the various make dist commands within M::B, EU::MM, etc actually always make the META.yml up the latest version of the spec. If a META.yml has declared itself as 1.0 version, then it need only to be 1.0 compliant, and not 1.2 compliant. There no need to force an upgrade from 1.0 to 1.2. The author has done the right thing and need not be punished. Now, for all META.yml files that don't declare a version at all... that's a different story. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Christopher H. Laco wrote: Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): metayml_is_parsable metayml_has_license metayml_conforms_spec metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable license in META.yml, while (the also new metric) has_humanreadable_license does some where basic guessing if there's a human-readable license (LICENSE file or pod-section). metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? Well, files that declare themselves as nothing: --- are a free for all... Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec err... Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec I know what I meant. :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Christopher H. Laco wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We might as well encourage people to change to the current spec. Chris --Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 vCard: http://www.chrisdolan.net/ChrisDolan.vcf Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/) I'm ok with has the latest and greatest 1.2 META spec being a metric, but I think it should be one of the above 100.00 bonus points metrics like the has_demo metric. and yes, I'm biased. I was #2. :-) -=Chris I'm not sure why, but about every other post I make isn't showing up on the list... hmm -=Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): metayml_is_parsable metayml_has_license metayml_conforms_spec metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable license in META.yml, while (the also new metric) has_humanreadable_license does some where basic guessing if there's a human-readable license (LICENSE file or pod-section). metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? Well, files that declare themselves as nothing: --- are a free for all... Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec If matchines versiones to their specs can't be done with the available parsers, Id say go back to what you were going before...which I'll assume was a simple throws error on load or doesn't throw error on load check -=Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote:
Aha, since I have your attention...
:-)
I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and
worst reports pages:
This distributions got the most Kwalitee:
-- These distributions have the most Kwalitee
This distributions got the least Kwalitee:
-- These distributions have the least Kwalitee
done.
Question: how are the dists sorted on the /author/CPANID page?
Currently random (whatever the DB spits out), but I'll change that to
sorted by distname
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Chris Dolan wrote: On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We might as well encourage people to change to the current spec. Chris --Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 vCard: http://www.chrisdolan.net/ChrisDolan.vcf Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/) I'm ok with has the latest and greatest 1.2 META spec being a metric, but I think it should be one of the above 100.00 bonus points metrics like the has_demo metric. and yes, I'm biased. I was #2. :-) -=Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Christopher H. Laco wrote: Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec err... Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec I know what I meant. :-) I thought that was the version of YAML they're conforming to. meta-spec is the META version. meta-spec: url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html version: 1.2 PS If someone would check the metafile generated by MakeMaker 6.31 for 1.2 spec conformance I'd appreciate that.
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Michael G Schwern wrote: Christopher H. Laco wrote: Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec err... Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec I know what I meant. :-) I thought that was the version of YAML they're conforming to. meta-spec is the META version. meta-spec: url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html version: 1.2 PS If someone would check the metafile generated by MakeMaker 6.31 for 1.2 spec conformance I'd appreciate that. Right. meta-spec version != yaml version. /me smacks forehead. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
On 11/3/06, Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: meta-spec: url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html version: 1.2 The one caution I'd give is around no_index. The spec always called for dir for directories, but CPAN/PAUSE were checking for directory (they may now support both). The blead spec has switched to directory to reflect common usage, but anyone using no-index successfully in the past will not be following the spec. Options: * Grandfather the blead spec for no_index * Get Ken to formally release 1.3 (with directory) and get authors to update various build-tools to declare 1.3 as the spec. Have anyone using directory re-release with a 1.3 META.yml. David
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:47:36AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
meta-spec:
url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html
version: 1.2
The 'problem' is that this field was introduced in 1.1, and it seems
that quite a lot of dists use 1.0 of META-spec.
My question basically is: What is the 'stable' version of META-spec? I
guess I'll post this on the module-build list...
PS If someone would check the metafile generated by MakeMaker 6.31
for 1.2 spec conformance I'd appreciate that.
Hmm, I tried to do that (I usually use Module::Build):
~$ module-starter --module=FooTest --author='foo' --email='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Created starter directories and files
~$ cd FooTest/
~/FooTest$ perl Makefile.PL
Checking if your kit is complete...
Warning: the following files are missing in your kit:
META.yml
Please inform the author.
Writing Makefile for FooTest
~/FooTest$ make dist
rm -rf FooTest-0.01
/usr/bin/perl5.8.8 -MExtUtils::Manifest=manicopy,maniread \
-e manicopy(maniread(),'FooTest-0.01', 'best');
mkdir FooTest-0.01
mkdir FooTest-0.01/t
mkdir FooTest-0.01/lib
-e: META.yml not found at -e line 1
Can't read META.yml: No such file or directory
make: *** [create_distdir] Error 2
I'm using ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.31
But the META.yml in MakeMaker confroms to META-spec 1.2, so if you use the same
tools to generate MakeMakers META.yml it should work:
http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee/ExtUtils-MakeMaker
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Thomas Klausner wrote: Hmm, I tried to do that (I usually use Module::Build): ~$ module-starter --module=FooTest --author='foo' --email='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Created starter directories and files ~$ cd FooTest/ ~/FooTest$ perl Makefile.PL Checking if your kit is complete... Warning: the following files are missing in your kit: META.yml Please inform the author. Writing Makefile for FooTest ~/FooTest$ make dist rm -rf FooTest-0.01 /usr/bin/perl5.8.8 -MExtUtils::Manifest=manicopy,maniread \ -e manicopy(maniread(),'FooTest-0.01', 'best'); mkdir FooTest-0.01 mkdir FooTest-0.01/t mkdir FooTest-0.01/lib -e: META.yml not found at -e line 1 Can't read META.yml: No such file or directory make: *** [create_distdir] Error 2 Oh so THAT'S where all those reports of -e META.yml not found were coming from. Module::Starter is being naughty and putting META.yml into the MANIFEST before it exists.
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:00:58PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Oh so THAT'S where all those reports of -e META.yml not found were
coming from. Module::Starter is being naughty and putting META.yml
into the MANIFEST before it exists.
Well, after fixing this by removing META.yml from MANIFEST everything
worked.
And the generated manifest complies to META.yml Spec 1.2
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): metayml_is_parsable metayml_has_license metayml_conforms_spec metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable license in META.yml, while (the also new metric) has_humanreadable_license does some where basic guessing if there's a human-readable license (LICENSE file or pod-section). metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? Just for giggles, what's the code behind that? Is it different than the current CPAN method: metayml_has_required_fields Is there a good way to check for 1.2 in a test, other than a these fields are required and YAML parses it type of strategy? -=Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Sort by kwalitee, descending! (Was: CPANTS and META.yml)
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:47:03 +0100, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi! On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: Question: how are the dists sorted on the /author/CPANID page? Currently random (whatever the DB spits out), but I'll change that to sorted by distname Sorting by qualitee shows which modules the author loves at the top and the neglected ones at the bottom. So there is only one right sort order: by kwalitee, descending. Thanks:) -- andreas
Re: Sort by kwalitee, descending! (Was: CPANTS and META.yml)
* Andreas J. Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-04 04:55]: Sorting by qualitee shows which modules the author loves at the top and the neglected ones at the bottom. So there is only one right sort order: by kwalitee, descending. Actually, by kwalitee, descending, then name, ascending. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: CPANTS and META.yml
* Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-03 15:25]: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? Is there something broken about 1.0 that is fixed in 1.2? If so, go ahead. If not, don’t. Once 1.3 is out, presumably with a fix for the `no_index` stuff, then check for conformance to 1.3. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
