On 10/5/07, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Cantrell wrote: > > From a quick look over the reports I've sent this month, 40K looks like > > a good cutoff point. Add the introductory text, perl -V, and any > > comments I might add by hand, and it'll still be well under 50K. > > Agreed.
I've set it at 100K in the devel version in the repo. (Engineering training instinctively says 'safety factor of 2'!) But I could be argued down. What's the basis for 40K? Is that a max? 99th percentile? Twice max already? > > Can I also suggest - probably for the future as it would require more > > work - some way of automatically killing off a test that has done > > nothing but spew megabyte after megabyte after megabyte of errors and > > warnings to the console, and just make it a FAIL? Spewing a gazillion > > warnings is generally considered to be a Bad Thing even if they're > > harmless and the code actually works. > > Ditto. (Sorry to bet <aol> here, but there's not a lot more to be said > than JFDI). That's actually really hard -- the output stream isn't being read interactively by a process. It's all batch, executed in a separate command line process and picked up from teed output later. I might be able to build that kind of a kill as a parameter to Tee -- if the tee file exceeds a certain size, then kill the process. But even that might require some real work to be portable. Forks and timeouts are not the nicest stuff to work with on Win32. And arguably, CPAN Testers isn't supposed to be judging cleanliness of tests. Just whether tests work. If it's a test that's spewing "uninitialized variable" warnings, but the code works, then it should PASS, not FAIL. At most, the test could be aborted and the report discarded. David
