A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-02 16:55]: >> On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:35 PM, Tyler MacDonald wrote: >>> I really like this idea. But as you pointed out, it's not just >>> authors that need to worry about running these tests, it's >>> packagers (ppm/deb/etc), automated testers >>> (cpants/testers.cpan.org/etc), and hackers. >> No, I disagree. I'm specifically talking about author tests, NOT >> packager tests. Things like Test::Spelling are pointless and >> difficult for packagers to execute because Test::Spelling relies >> on an external aspell or ispell program *and* performs >> differently in the presence of an author's custom dictionary >> (mine has "Dolan"; does yours?) >> >> These specifically are not exhaustive tests but spit-and-polish >> tests. > > I was just gonna say. It’s pointless for anyone but the author to > check POD or test coverage. Only under the assumption that the > author was negligent and shipped a distribution without running > the POD tests does it make any sense for a packager to run them. > And then it still doesn’t make sense for *every* packager to run > them. Similarly for Devel::Cover – what’s the packager to do,
Normally I'd agree, but that's not 100% set in stone. I work on Linux/Win32 and run the usual pod syntax/coverage tests on those platforms. I also have FreeBSD servers for which package could/would be created. On more than one occasion, I've had pod2html/man (troff) errors under FreeBSD that were only found by running the author tests there, even though the pod syntax/coverage was perfectly fine on two other platforms. It's these sorts of problems where the packager running those tests are quite beneficial...Especially on platforms where the packagers/dists may be adding patches to the core dist. -=Chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
