Re: [PATCH] full[er] disclosure on module not-found
Geoffrey Young wrote: I think it's OK to add any extra logging in the verbose mode though (when -verbose is passed) if you find it helpful as a developer. The verbose mode is for developers and for when users have problems, so any extra useful info is a goodness. yeah, that's a good idea. nevertheless, it might be useful if you swapped the logic around, adding additional $why only if the error isn't the standard "Can't locate Bar.pm in @INC..." Yes, I don't quite understand what's the added value of your patch, as you add the extra output when it can't find the file. Where is your supporting email, talks about the opposite case. You probably wanted something like: $why .= "$@" unless $@ =~ /^Can't locate/; ken and I talked about this over irc. the issues he had seemed to stem from the fact that the error thrown from use() isn't always intuitive to non-perl folks. specifically, the error message from have_module is 'couldn't find module' which is a bit misleading - in many cases perl can "find" the module just fine, but it can't be used due to missing dependencies (ken's current problem). so, I'd suggest making the the have_module message a bit clearer, maybe something like 'module $module not available' or somesuch. also, ken pointed out that $@ will contain "Can't locate Bar.pm in @INC" if you use() Foo.pm and Foo.pm use()s Bar.pm and Bar.pm is missing. so $@ =~ /^Can't locate/; should probably be something like $@ =~ /^Can't locate $module/; or somesuch, so that a missing Foo.pm is not reported verbosely, but a missing Bar.pm is. Understood. then again, if the current behavior can be maintained and $@ printed only in -verbose mode you don't really need a regex at all. All, but the case when it can't find a file. In which case $@ is too big to print, usually it can go up to 10 lines listing tons of dirs in @INC. There should be a clear distinction between the module is not there -- we don't want any errors printed out at all (that's why we use have_module() and not just require) and the module is there but something goes wrong, in which case an explanation is due. I didn't participate in the discussion, but may be Ken should use require instead of have_module(), at least while developing. Dunno if that's what he is after. -- __ Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: [PATCH] full[er] disclosure on module not-found
> I think it's OK to add any extra logging in the verbose mode though > (when -verbose is passed) if you find it helpful as a developer. The > verbose mode is for developers and for when users have problems, so any > extra useful info is a goodness. yeah, that's a good idea. > >> nevertheless, it might be useful if you swapped the logic around, adding >> additional $why only if the error isn't the standard "Can't locate >> Bar.pm in >> @INC..." > > > Yes, I don't quite understand what's the added value of your patch, as > you add the extra output when it can't find the file. Where is your > supporting email, talks about the opposite case. You probably wanted > something like: > > $why .= "$@" unless $@ =~ /^Can't locate/; ken and I talked about this over irc. the issues he had seemed to stem from the fact that the error thrown from use() isn't always intuitive to non-perl folks. specifically, the error message from have_module is 'couldn't find module' which is a bit misleading - in many cases perl can "find" the module just fine, but it can't be used due to missing dependencies (ken's current problem). so, I'd suggest making the the have_module message a bit clearer, maybe something like 'module $module not available' or somesuch. also, ken pointed out that $@ will contain "Can't locate Bar.pm in @INC" if you use() Foo.pm and Foo.pm use()s Bar.pm and Bar.pm is missing. so $@ =~ /^Can't locate/; should probably be something like $@ =~ /^Can't locate $module/; or somesuch, so that a missing Foo.pm is not reported verbosely, but a missing Bar.pm is. then again, if the current behavior can be maintained and $@ printed only in -verbose mode you don't really need a regex at all. --Geoff
Re: [PATCH] full[er] disclosure on module not-found
Geoffrey Young wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: have_module() currently is rather terse when the problem with a perl module is actually with something the module requires or uses. here's a patch which will extract a little more info from $@ if it can, and provide it as part of the message. helpful for tracking down what is *actually* at fault.. well, in the _vast_ majority of cases I would expect the error message to read "Can't locate...". that's the purpose of have_module after all, to ping if the module is there or not. in the rare cases where the module is there but can't be loaded (such as modules in development) it might be useful to have additional information. but have_module() really isn't there as a development tool - that's what perl -cw is for :) Seconded. In addition extra verbosity in the terse mode is not helpful at all, it makes the output hard to read. Especially when you have lots of tests. I think it's OK to add any extra logging in the verbose mode though (when -verbose is passed) if you find it helpful as a developer. The verbose mode is for developers and for when users have problems, so any extra useful info is a goodness. nevertheless, it might be useful if you swapped the logic around, adding additional $why only if the error isn't the standard "Can't locate Bar.pm in @INC..." Yes, I don't quite understand what's the added value of your patch, as you add the extra output when it can't find the file. Where is your supporting email, talks about the opposite case. You probably wanted something like: $why .= "$@" unless $@ =~ /^Can't locate/; no? -- __ Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: [PATCH] full[er] disclosure on module not-found
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > have_module() currently is rather terse when the problem with a > perl module is actually with something the module requires or uses. > here's a patch which will extract a little more info from $@ if it > can, and provide it as part of the message. helpful for tracking > down what is *actually* at fault.. well, in the _vast_ majority of cases I would expect the error message to read "Can't locate...". that's the purpose of have_module after all, to ping if the module is there or not. in the rare cases where the module is there but can't be loaded (such as modules in development) it might be useful to have additional information. but have_module() really isn't there as a development tool - that's what perl -cw is for :) nevertheless, it might be useful if you swapped the logic around, adding additional $why only if the error isn't the standard "Can't locate Bar.pm in @INC..." HTH --Geoff
