David Landgren wrote:
demerphq wrote:
You miss my point. Whether the code be cross-platform or cross-version,
you need to aggregate the coverage results from all the environments
your code is designed to run on.
How is this done?
demerphq wrote:
On 9/21/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
taken,
On 9/21/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
> coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
> 100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
> taken, but they are
Selon Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:58:36AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
>
> > To me, this is a mark of Quality. It would be good to have it as a
> > Kwalitee metric, but I see no easy way. The simplest way I can see would
> > be to have a META.yml key t
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:58:36AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> To me, this is a mark of Quality. It would be good to have it as a
> Kwalitee metric, but I see no easy way. The simplest way I can see would
> be to have a META.yml key that contains a URI to the HTML D::C report. I
> would
David Cantrell wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 9/15/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage >= 80% ...
I have to wonder about how you handle modules that have cod
demerphq wrote:
On 9/15/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage >= 80% ...
I have to wonder about how you handle modules that have code that is
Perl version de
David Landgren wrote:
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 reco
