* 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, write more tests to include with the platform-specific package? That makes no sense. These are tests that need to pass once on the author’s system *before* release. If a release is cut without them passing, it’s pointless of others to re-run them. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
