use Test::More no_plan = $plan;
In the developer release of Test::Simple, Test::Builder has been altered to die if you have any arguments after 'no_plan'. This means that some previously passing tests will fail. In fact, there are two test programs in Moose 0.57 which have this and thus fail to pass: use Test::More no_plan = 1; I've recommended that we warn instead of croak as I don't know how widespread this problem is (I'd just fix it, but I don't have external Subversion access at work). I expect we'll fix this, but for the time being, please don't use 'no_plan = $plan' in your tests. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::More 0.81_01
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:47:58 -0700, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: http://test-more.googlecode.com/files/Test-Simple-0.81_01.tar.gz This version breaks the test for DAGOLDEN/Sub-Uplevel-0.1901.tar.gz t/05_honor_prior_override # Failed test 'use Sub::Uplevel;' # at t/05_honor_prior_override.t line 50. # Tried to use 'Sub::Uplevel'. # Error: Global symbol $VERSION requires explicit package name at /home/sand/.cpan/build/Sub-Uplevel-0.1901-NZoOq2/blib/lib/Sub/Uplevel.pm line 5. # Global symbol @ISA requires explicit package name at /home/sand/.cpan/build/Sub-Uplevel-0.1901-NZoOq2/blib/lib/Sub/Uplevel.pm line 15. # Global symbol @EXPORT requires explicit package name at /home/sand/.cpan/build/Sub-Uplevel-0.1901-NZoOq2/blib/lib/Sub/Uplevel.pm line 16. # BEGIN not safe after errors--compilation aborted at /home/sand/.cpan/build/Sub-Uplevel-0.1901-NZoOq2/blib/lib/Sub/Uplevel.pm line 85. # Compilation failed in require at (eval 4) line 2. # BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at (eval 4) line 2. Number found where operator expected at t/05_honor_prior_override.t line 65, near uplevel 1 (Do you need to predeclare uplevel?) Name main::uplevel used only once: possible typo at t/05_honor_prior_override.t line 65. # Failed test 'caller from uplevel subroutine calls custom routine' # at t/05_honor_prior_override.t line 81. # got: 'CODE(0x87b820)' # expected: 'niam' # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 7. Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 2/7 subtests -- andreas
Re: passing the baton onwards (was Re: The relation between CPAN Testers and quality (or why CPAN Testers sucks if you don't need it))
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 04:07:43PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:19:26PM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Careful attention and responsiveness to CPAN testers and to rt.cpan.org is the best cure for this. Alternatively, I could just not upload code to CPAN, and not have this problem. You're right that it's a problem. I'm not convinced that your cure will work with all real world volunteers. The best cure is that if someone wishes to use a piece of software and finds that it has gone rotten, he can take over maintenance of it. That's how I ended up with Data::Compare. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist Aluminum makes a nice hat. All paranoids will tell you that. But what most do not know Is reflections will show On the CIA's evil landsat.
Re: The relation between CPAN Testers and quality (or why CPAN Testers sucks if you don't need it)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:36:10AM -0700, chromatic wrote: It's a little bit like trying to have a discussion with someone who's upset but won't tell you why, and you have to guess and hope you don't make things worse before you get a useful answer. Thankfully, unlike in personal relationships, politely asking a CPAN-tester WTF? won't get you slapped. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic In this episode, R2 and Luke weld the doors shut on their X-Wing, and Chewbacca discovers that his Ewok girlfriend is really just a Womble with its nose chopped off.
Re: reasonable reporting
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:56:02AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote: It should not be a big red deal if an author omits the declaration of requiring perl 5.8.mumble+. At this point, it is a reasonable assumption that code should run on 5.8.8 and 5.10.+, but an unreasonable assumption that it runs on 5.6.x or less. It should not be a big red deal if a distribution doesn't run on VMS. This is not a system many people have ready access to or interest in. The various tools that people have written recently for looking at CPAN-testers results make it easy to filter them by perl version and by platform. eg ... http://bbbike.radzeit.de/~slaven/cpantestersmatrix.cgi?dist=DateTime+0.4304 http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=DateTime;perl=latest So if a user doesn't care about 5.6 or VMS, he can just ignore those data. Now, also currently, there is only one web-view presentation of the reports on search.cpan.org and cpantesters.perl.org. This also causes conflict: * If anybody starts a VMS smoker, the entire CPAN is likely to light-up red. Nah. Randomly picking on DateTime again, you'll just see a tiny little red tick at the right hand edge of the green bar that's currently at the top of this page: http://www.cpantesters.org/show/DateTime.html#DateTime-0.4304 or maybe you won't, cos the overwhelming number of passes would still swamp it, just like it swamps the two fails that are there already. -- David Cantrell | top google result for internet beard fetish club 23.5 degrees of axial tilt is the reason for the season
Re: use Test::More no_plan = $plan;
On Sep 8, 2008, at 03:49, Ovid wrote: In the developer release of Test::Simple, Test::Builder has been altered to die if you have any arguments after 'no_plan'. This means that some previously passing tests will fail. In fact, there are two test programs in Moose 0.57 which have this and thus fail to pass: use Test::More no_plan = 1; nothingmuch fixed this yesterday. I've recommended that we warn instead of croak as I don't know how widespread this problem is (I'd just fix it, but I don't have external Subversion access at work). I expect we'll fix this, but for the time being, please don't use 'no_plan = $plan' in your tests. s/for the time being, //; Best, David
Test::Most 'die' unless $smoking;
If someone uses Test::Most and either has the environment DIE_ON_FAIL or BAIL_ON_FAIL set to true, or has 'die' or 'bail' in the import list, they'll likely be disappointed by failing test results sent back as they'll likely be incomplete. What's the 'canonical' way to check to see if my tests are being run by a smoker? I can't find anything in Test::Smoke about this (I might be blind). Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
Re: Test::Most 'die' unless $smoking;
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the 'canonical' way to check to see if my tests are being run by a
smoker? I can't find anything in Test::Smoke about this (I might be blind).
At least for CPAN Testers, the canonical way is $ENV{AUTOMATED_TESTING}.
I don't know if that also gets set for automated core smoking.
-- David
Re: Module::Build 0.2809 release coming, should we test it?
# from Andreas J. Koenig # on Monday 08 September 2008 15:16: Since yesterday I have downloaded and analysed ~56000 testreports from cpantesters and found ~135 distros that have been tested by both MB 0.2808 and 0.2808_03. There is only one result (Test-Group-0.12) that looks bad but it turns out to be due to broken Test::More 0.81_01. All others suggest that _03 is doing well. Umm... okay. 1. I see a lot of m/0.2808_03 +FAIL/ in there. Did you chase-down several of those? Are you saying that having some fail on 0.2808 implies that some fail on 0.2808_03 means no regression, or did you manage to somehow correlate the 0.2808_03 fails to the same machines sending 0.2808 fails? 2. Where are these reports coming from? Again, the subject of false fails: I would hate for testers to be pummelling other authors with alpha M::B errors while the M::B maintainers are left blissfully ignorant. But those are just observations on the past. I think we're probably ready to ship. Thanks, Eric -- It works better if you plug it in! --Sattinger's Law --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
Re: use Test::More no_plan = $plan;
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-08 12:55]: In the developer release of Test::Simple, Test::Builder has been altered to die if you have any arguments after 'no_plan'. This means that some previously passing tests will fail. In fact, there are two test programs in Moose 0.57 which have this and thus fail to pass: use Test::More no_plan = 1; I've recommended that we warn instead of croak as I don't know how widespread this problem is I tried to use Google CodeSearch, but for some reason all my regexes that I feed it match all the cases I want to exclude. I tried variations on use\s+Test::More.*no_plan\s*[')/]\s*[^;] but that matches pretty much every `use Test::More` line with `no_plan` on it ever written, regardless of what follows. If anyone can see something that I can’t, please tell me. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: use Test::More no_plan = $plan;
# from Aristotle Pagaltzis # on Monday 08 September 2008 21:50: use\s+Test::More.*no_plan\s*[')/]\s*[^;] but that matches pretty much every `use Test::More` line with `no_plan` on it ever written, regardless of what follows. If anyone can see something that I can’t, please tell me. /.*=/ or /\d/ perhaps? But, uh... what are you looking for exactly? I suspect that the /[^;]/ is matching \n or just not working. Remember, google doesn't use perl ;-) --Eric -- Because understanding simplicity is complicated. --Eric Raymond --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
