Hi!
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:17:40PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> >Adding a kwalitee check for a test that runs Devel::Cover by default
> >might on the surface appear to meet this goal, but I hope people
> >recognize it as a bad idea.
> >
> >Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for POD errors and
> >coverage a good idea?
>
> Although I've now added the automated inclusion of a 99_pod.t to my
> packaging system (less for kwalitee than that I've noticed the odd bug
> get through myself) why doesn't kwalitee just check the POD itself,
> rather than make a check for a check?
It does:
no_pod_errors
Shortcoming: The documentation for this distribution contains syntactic
errors in it's POD.
Defined in: Module::CPANTS::Generator::Pod
I added the check for Test::Pod because somebody requested it (together with
Test::Pod::Coverage).
While I can see the point why people object to this metrics, I currently
leave them in, mostly because I've got no time for CPANTS right now (mostly
because of the Austrian Perl Workshop organisation (shameless plug:
http://conferences.yapceurope.org/apw2005/)
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}
