On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:42:52PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
> Schwern: Do you think it's worthwhile accounting for this MakeMaker
> anachronism in writing test files, i.e., providing an absolute path to
> every chdir call?
I think you misunderstand. The problem is not using relative paths
James E Keenan wrote:
> snip
>
> The thing that puzzled me about Burnout's test failures was that they
> seemed to happen at places where the code was very mundane. We've
> been communicating on this list, Perlmonks, and off-list about it for
> weeks. We did confirm that the tests were
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 06:55:12PM -0500, Comrade Burnout wrote:
i upgraded to 5.8.2 (i think that's the minor version number .. don't
recall), and that "magickally" fixed everything.
i was running 5.6.1 at the time.
Oh. Did you chdir() at all in the tests? Earl
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 06:55:12PM -0500, Comrade Burnout wrote:
> i upgraded to 5.8.2 (i think that's the minor version number .. don't
> recall), and that "magickally" fixed everything.
>
> i was running 5.6.1 at the time.
Oh. Did you chdir() at all in the tests? Earlier versions of MakeMake
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:33:07AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> This will penalise all the modules that use ExtUtils::MakeMaker, which,
> last time I looked, does not generate the license metadata, even though
> the module may clearly state the license used in the documentation.
The latest alp
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:32:47PM -0500, Comrade Burnout wrote:
>
>
>>But, some of the test fail because the previously installed version of
>>EU::MM ends up being used in the tests, and not the version in my local
>>dir (that I'm trying to test)
>>
>>
>
>Do your t
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:32:47PM -0500, Comrade Burnout wrote:
> But, some of the test fail because the previously installed version of
> EU::MM ends up being used in the tests, and not the version in my local
> dir (that I'm trying to test)
Do your tests run another copy of Perl? ie...
system
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:09:55PM +, Smylers wrote:
> Sounds like a cunning plan by the Sub::Uplevel author to get you to add
> that module as a prereq for all yours, thereby increasing his kwalitee.
I have no idea what you're talking about. [adjusts monocle, strokes white cat,
smiles villain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 19 September 2005 11:33, David Landgren wrote:
> Gábor Szabó wrote:
> > What do you think about adding a has_license kwalitee to CPANTS ?
> > Checking if the META.yml has that entry ?
>
> This will penalise all the modules that use ExtUtils::Make
> No, not when I run the example out of the box - I had to move the
> PerlPassEnv directives to extra.conf.in and rebuild (this makes sense,
> though, as extra.conf is processed before modperl_extra.pl, while
> extra.last.conf is processed after - perhaps you fixed your local copy and
> haven't up
>> Have you had D::C collect coverage stats for tests in the t/apache,
>> t/response/TestApache format?
>
> yes. when I run the skeleton I pointed you toward last time I get this
>
> Filestmt bran condsub time total
> - -- --
Hilary Holz wrote:
Okay - here's what I've figured out - D::C is not recording any coverage
info when I run a test in t/apache. D::C is recording coverage for all the
tests that are in the t/ directory - and the reports are in the realm of the
reasonable.
Have you had D::C collect coverage sta
Gábor Szabó wrote:
What do you think about adding a has_license kwalitee to CPANTS ?
Checking if the META.yml has that entry ?
This will penalise all the modules that use ExtUtils::MakeMaker, which,
last time I looked, does not generate the license metadata, even though
the module may clearly
Thomas Klausner wrote:
[...]
The cpants analysis fails to recognise this as valid. What is it looking
for and/or could it be taught to look for this? I thought that it was
only looking for a string eval of "use Test::Pod".
It does, but the qq{} you're using isn't recognised by the regex. I'l
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 09:30:03PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
Yeah, but I'm loathe to dedicate two separate test files merely to score
two points of Kwalitee. As it is, I'd just much rather bundle both tests
in a 00_basic.t file along with all the other standard
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 09:30:03PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> Yeah, but I'm loathe to dedicate two separate test files merely to score
> two points of Kwalitee. As it is, I'd just much rather bundle both tests
> in a 00_basic.t file along with all the other standard no-brainer tests.
I
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:24:26PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > The cpants analysis fails to recognise this as valid. What is it
> > looking for and/or could it be taught to look for this? I thought that
> > it was only looking for a string eval of "use Test::Pod".
>
> I would like to know the sam
What do you think about adding a has_license kwalitee to CPANTS ?
Checking if the META.yml has that entry ?
For extra points you might also parse the module file to see if there
is copyright and license information and if they are the same as in META.yml
This will encourage people state clearly w
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:48:02AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> Seriously though, I have a module whose test suite includes Test::Pod
> and Test::Pod::Coverage, except that I use the following construct:
>
> SKIP: {
> skip( 'Test::Pod not installed on this system', 1 )
> unles
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> For all the activity going on with CPANTS, we have nothing on
> qa.perl.org that refers to it.
>
> Can someone please write up a paragraph and a link that I can put up
> on qa.perl.org's front page?
I'll wirte up something
20 matches
Mail list logo
