Re: [perl #44353] [BUG] Configure.pl: verbose-step option not workingwith named step
James E Keenan wrote: Allison Randal wrote: So, how about we make both --fatal-step and --verbose-step accept either a step number or step name. Didn't I hear someone recently remark, Simplification is a good idea? ;-) This is doable, but it will take me at least 9 separate test files to thoroughly test it. Understood. Usability is important, though, especially in the part of the system that will be the first thing many users see of Parrot. Making the config process friendly to the average human is worth a little extra work in testing. Now, if you said it was impossible to test, that'd be a different matter. But this isn't impossible to test, just tedious to test. And some of the tedium can be relieved by generating the (nearly identical) tests for each step from a template. Allison
Re: [perl #44353] [BUG] Configure.pl: verbose-step option not workingwith named step
Allison Randal wrote: Simplification is a good idea. I suspect most people would rather type some short unique value for the option than the text of the description anyway. In the reconfigure/ branch, I have figured out how to do this with the --fatal-step option (https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=45525). I will soon be proposing a patch to trunk for --fatal-step, and it would be great if --verbose-step and --fatal-step could work in the same manner. Agreed on wanting consistency here. I should note that currently you can also specify --verbose-step=53 and have step # 53, and only #53, execute verbosely. How that would be affected I haven't yet thought through? Given a choice between the two, I'd rather see the step number in the non-verbose output: 53) Loading platform and local hints files...done. than see the step name: inter::progs: Loading platform and local hints files...done. So, how about we make both --fatal-step and --verbose-step accept either a step number or step name. Didn't I hear someone recently remark, Simplification is a good idea? ;-) This is doable, but it will take me at least 9 separate test files to thoroughly test it.
