Allison Randal via RT wrote:
Christoph Otto wrote:
The non-draft PDDs are all passing t/codingstd/pdd_format.t as of
r30810, but two of the draft PDDs aren't. Since they're still drafts
and as such are very likely to change, it doesn't seem worthwhile to
bring them into compliance or to have a test depend on them.
I propose that pdd_format.t be split into 2 otherwise identical tests;
one for draft PDDs and one for final PDDs. The draft test could be
permanently TODO'd, which would indicate if any of the drafts were
broken without messing up the test results. The final PDD test could
become part of make test and this ticket could be marked resolved.
I'll submit a patch if this seems to be a reasonable solution.
I just updated the draft PDDs so they pass. For as long as the 'draft'
directory exists, I'd like the PDDs there to be subjected to the same
formatting standards as the approved ones, even if they aren't
"official" yet.
Allison
If those are your thoughts on the subject, then it seems to make sense to add
the pdd format test to make test. The attached patch does this.
I'll apply it and mark this ticket as resolved before the next #parrotsketch
unless there are any objections.
Christoph
Index: lib/Parrot/Harness/DefaultTests.pm
===================================================================
--- lib/Parrot/Harness/DefaultTests.pm (revision 30841)
+++ lib/Parrot/Harness/DefaultTests.pm (working copy)
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@
t/compilers/json/*.t
t/examples/*.t
t/doc/*.t
+ t/codingstd/pdd_format.t
t/distro/manifest.t
);
