Re: cperl in the CPAN Testers Matrix
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Felipe Gasper wrote: > >> >> On Jun 11, 2019, at 5:56 AM, David Cantrell wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:45:27PM +0200, E. Choroba wrote: >> >>> I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining >>> the report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what >>> it was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report >>> carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See >>> http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 >>> >>> I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good >>> idea to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? >> >> FWIW I'd quite like to get notifications when my code fails on cperl >> even if those test results should probably be excluded from aggregates >> like the number of passes/fails. There's a lot to like about cperl. > > Likewise. > > -F Right. Some of y'all would, so the long-term end-goal difference between interpreters and variants is that interpreters would be "opt-out" of notifications, and variants would be "opt-in" to notifications. So, step one is prevent spurious reports by filtering them, and then step two is allow an opt-in. Doug Bell d...@preaction.me
Re: cperl in the CPAN Testers Matrix
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 5:56 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:45:27PM +0200, E. Choroba wrote: > >> I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining >> the report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what >> it was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report >> carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See >> http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 >> >> I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good >> idea to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? > > FWIW I'd quite like to get notifications when my code fails on cperl > even if those test results should probably be excluded from aggregates > like the number of passes/fails. There's a lot to like about cperl. Likewise. -F
Re: cperl in the CPAN Testers Matrix
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:45:27PM +0200, E. Choroba wrote: > I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining > the report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what > it was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report > carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See > http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 > > I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good > idea to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? FWIW I'd quite like to get notifications when my code fails on cperl even if those test results should probably be excluded from aggregates like the number of passes/fails. There's a lot to like about cperl. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire Your call is important to me. To see if it's important to you I'm going to make you wait on hold for five minutes. All calls are recorded for blackmail and amusement purposes.
Re: cperl in the CPAN Testers Matrix
Thanks a lot, sounds like good news. Ch. == On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Doug Bell wrote: For now, I'm just going to filter them out entirely: They will not appear in test summaries, release summaries, or failure notifications. I will be holding on to them, and they can be accessed via the reports API. In the future, I'd like to populate a "language variant" field for those projects whose compatibility with the official language is questionable (or not a goal of the project), but for which some manner of compatibility is possible. This would differ from the "interpreter" field in that the different interpreters are trying to be compatible with each other, and variants may not. I'm getting ready for TPC::NA, so it'll likely be a week or two before I can address this properly. Until then all I can say is sorry about the useless test failure notifications: Nobody consulted me on sending in cperl test reports, so there was no way for me to prepare for it. Doug Bell d...@preaction.me On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:45 PM, E. Choroba wrote: Hi, I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining the report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what it was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? Cheers, Ch.
Re: cperl in the CPAN Testers Matrix
For now, I'm just going to filter them out entirely: They will not appear in test summaries, release summaries, or failure notifications. I will be holding on to them, and they can be accessed via the reports API. In the future, I'd like to populate a "language variant" field for those projects whose compatibility with the official language is questionable (or not a goal of the project), but for which some manner of compatibility is possible. This would differ from the "interpreter" field in that the different interpreters are trying to be compatible with each other, and variants may not. I'm getting ready for TPC::NA, so it'll likely be a week or two before I can address this properly. Until then all I can say is sorry about the useless test failure notifications: Nobody consulted me on sending in cperl test reports, so there was no way for me to prepare for it. Doug Bell d...@preaction.me > On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:45 PM, E. Choroba wrote: > > Hi, > > I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining the > report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what it > was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report > carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See > http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 > > I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good idea > to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? > > Cheers, > > Ch.
