On Fri, Mar 28, 2025, at 11:20, James E Keenan wrote: > On 3/28/25 10:03, Ruth Holloway wrote: > > I. Rationale > > [snip] > > V1.0: The basics -- Hope to have this completed and deployed prior to > > PTS May 1: > > * Accept a properly-formatted test result from cpanm-reporter, using > > the Metabase transport pointing at its address. (DONE) > > In our current setup, when a test result arrives at Metabase, does a > report generated by cpanm-reporter look any different from one generated > by cpan-reporter or cpanplus-reporter? > > If not, then shouldn't we be able to send results generated by > cpan-reporter *already* be acceptable by Magpie?
I'm going to hedge here, and say "*probably." *Both Task::CPAN::Reporter and App::cpanminus::reporter use Test::Reporter::Transport::Metabase under the hood, so it should work. The 1.x string after the basics will be time for us to be *certain* that's the case, and make sure that all extant toolkits work. My expectation is that Task::CPAN::Reporter won't need anything, just the same config changes that a cpanm-reporrter user would make. > I ask because, while I used cpanm-reporter within my "CPAN River 3000" > project in the late 2010s, I've been using Task::CPAN::Reporter in > recent years and would prefer not to have to change. Absolutely understood; part of our philosophy from the get-go on this was to pick *one* toolkit, get that working, and then make sure the other paths work--in your case, that should just be a matter of assurance testing. There may be other kits where something more will be needed, obviously. > Thanks for this well thought-out proposal. You're very welcome! --Ruth
