On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:46:13AM -0400, David Golden wrote: > 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?
It might be interesting to run a script that can do a check on that sort of thing. I should be able to a canabalised script from the current daily cpanstats script. If I get time over the weekend, I'll try and see what stats I get for so far this year. > > > 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. > > 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. Don't go there, there be dragons! > 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. This was another suggested report type I had several years ago. WARNING. Although the distribution passes, a report is produced and sent to the author, as per a FAIL report. It would still count as a PASS, but the author would get the benefit of being alerted to any warnings that they may not have been aware of. Unfortunately this would require a change to CPANPLUS (and probably CPAN/CPAN-Reporter) to capture the output rather than just create a simple PASS report. When I was testing I did get a few distributions that resulted in plenty of output, mostly from annoying distributions that insisted that you enter an value interactively, and thus got you into an endless loop waiting for me to come in in the morning to find I'd only tested a couple of distributions instead of the few hundred I'd expected! (sorry it's been a long day :)). But those are the more annoying, I don't expect you're going to get a decent cross-platform way of spotting those or stopping them. It was bad enough doing them manually on Win32 :( Barbie. -- Birmingham Perl Mongers - http://birmingham.pm.org Miss Barbell Productions - http://www.missbarbell.co.uk
