On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:17:55AM +0100, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
>
> AFAICT, serious smokers (the ones that automatically and regularly
> send CPAN Testers reports) all use CPAN::YACSmoke. The previously
> used one was cpansmoke, included with previous versions of CPANPLUS:
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/CPANPLUS-0.0499/bin/cpansmoke
Currently there are no other ways of detecting automaing testing
reliably. Prior to YACSmoke there was $ENV{VISUAL} eq 'echo', but even
that wasn't guaranteed. I was working on adding the AUTOMATED_TESTING
flag to CPANPLUS, when the smoke testing got dropped from the
distribution. As such it was one of the first things to go into
YACSmoke. I did write to other writers of smoke test scripts suggesting
they do the same, but AFAIK none of them have implemented it.
> I don't think it provided a hint for telling a module whether it was
> automated testing or not, but I don't think that anybody still use it.
It didn't, and from the reports I've seen I don't think any automated
testing uses anything less than CPANPLUS 0.050.
> That's something not indicated in the CPAN Testers Statistics site,
> which was finally made available (but very silently) by Barbie:
> http://perl.grango.org/
I wouldn't say silently, as I did announce it in my use.perl journal.
However, I wasn't convinced that many people would be interested in it,
so I didn't make a big song and dance about it.
Anyhow, I haven't added the stats about whether a report is from
automated testing as you can't tell unless the test is using YACSmoke
as it adds a tag line in the report. Incidentally, Adam it would be
worth you doing the same with PITA, so these sorts of stats could be
gleaned in the future.
> Other reports may be send by people like me when they interactively
> install modules using CPANPLUS, or by hand using Test::Reporter.
There are still quite a number of interactive reports submitted,
although the bulk is automated.
Barbie.
