On Sun Apr 20 18:50:37 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [snip] . Our configuration system ought to be > getting > easier to understand, to maintain, and modify. Is it? Our > configuration > tests ought to be getting more comprehensive, simpler, and valuable. > Are > they?
As to our configuration system in general, please see RT 53142 just filed, which calls for a PDD to document our understanding of what our current configuration system is and where it has to go. As to the tests: About a year ago particle suggested that, having finished writing tests for the build tools, I turn my attention to Configure.pl and the configuration step classes and, essentially, do there what I had done with the build tools. I did so. In fact, some of the first tests for the config step classes were written at the post-YAPC hackathon in Houston, where you were also present. But since that time I haven't had too much guidance from the Parrot leadership on this, other than speaking with Allison a bit about it at Pittsburgh Perl Workshop last October. And since, as I describe in the other RT, we don't have a PDD for configuration, I haven't been able to design from scratch a testing system that better matches our needs. If you could sketch an approach to testing that is simultaneously more comprehensive, simpler, valuable and easier to understand, maintain and modify, I might be able to work on that. As to the question of whether people know how to write tests: I think there is empirical evidence that people know how to write tests for the configuration steps. For example, when François earlier submitted config/auto/crypto.pm, it came with a very nice set of test files right from the start. In the past I have worked with people around this and I pledge to continue to do so in the future. Thank you very much. kid51
