Hi! On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:40:45AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> There are now two kwalitee tests for 'has_test_pod' and > 'has_test_pod_coverage'. These check that there are test scripts for > POD correctness and POD coverage. Actually they check if Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage are used in a test script. > These seem completely and utterly wrong to me. Surely the kwalitee > checks should be purely that the POD is correct and sufficiently covers > the module? Well, sort of. In fact, there is a check for pod correctnes (no_pod_errors). I cannot check POD coverage because Pod::Coverage executes the code. Which is something I do not want to do (for various reasons, see http://domm.zsi.at/talks/2005_brussels_cpants/s00023.html ). > Otherwise a distribution which has perfectly correct POD, which > completely covers the module, is deemed to be of lesser kwalitee, and > listed on CPANTS as having shortcomings. Well, kwalitee != quality. Currently, kwalitee basically only says how well-formed a distribution is. For my definition of well-formed :-) But I'm always open to suggestion etc. Several kwalitee indicators have been removed because people convvinced me. Several where added (e.g. has_test_pod_coverage) > We should be very wary of stipulating HOW authors have to achieve their > quality. Saying you can only check your POD in one specific way goes to > far IMO. That's a good point. OTOH, I know of several people who added Pod::Coverage to their test suites (and hopefully found some undocumented methods...) because of this metric. Thus one goal (raising the overall quality (!) of CPAN) is reached. Anyway, I invite everybody to suggest new metrics or convince me why current metrics are bad. And nobody is going to stop you from fetching the raw data (either all the YAML files or the SQLite DB) and create your own Kwalitee (yay, heretic kwalitee!). -- #!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}
