Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

Randy W. Sims schrieb: Steffen Mueller wrote: Feedback is welcome, though I'd rather not talk about the way I determine the version number. It works for all known versions of Module::Install. I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For example, who's to say what const

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

Jonathan Rockway schrieb: 1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is the only viable solution. Anybody using Module::Install for their modules should be aware of that. Of course, if the changes between the Module::Install releases don't mat

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Andy Lester schrieb: At this point, CPANTS rules are getting into the realm of purely self-pleasuring. If more than a dozen people outside of this small enclave of people cares whether a module gets a 16 or 17, I'll be shocked. Personally, I don't. But other people seem to. 2) If you find th

Re: Lessons from the test function parameter placement quibbles?

chromatic wrote: (My mind idly wonders if it were possible to generate this test description... somehow... somewhere) That's what I do with my Test:: modules. The test description is optional, and if not provided the module generates a (hopefully) sensible default. N

Re: Lessons from the test function parameter placement quibbles?

On 7/19/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Descriptions are optional because they are not necessary for the test. Sometimes a test doesn't need a description, its obvious from reading the code what its doing. Sometimes it would be redundant. Sometimes you're just writing fast. I

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

Since Adam Kennedy is busy with $real_life, I'll say what he might have said. Jonathan Rockway wrote: I see two resolutions to this problem: 1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is the philosophy of M::I. Authors (i.e. experienced dev

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Steffen Mueller wrote: If people using the most widespread Win32 Perl distribution can't install 450 modules (without the chain of failing dependencies), that's a qa nightmare, IMO. People running the most widespread Win32 Perl distribution can't install way more than 450 modules anyway beca

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 7/19/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/17/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, if the test passes, there's no need to know where exactly it's > > located. If it fails, the diagnostics contain the line number: > > > > not ok 6 > > # Failed test in t/xxx.t

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 7/19/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know we've moved on, but I'm in a completely different time zone, so please understand... > > I, like demerphq, also think that coming up with a name for each and every test is

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

On 7/19/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steffen Mueller wrote: > If people using the most widespread Win32 Perl distribution can't > install 450 modules (without the chain of failing dependencies), that's > a qa nightmare, IMO. People running the most widespread Win32 Perl distributi

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:18 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote: 4) Adopt a Perl Mongers group. None around. That's OK. Pick one that's not near you. Join their mailing list and help them out. xoa -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

On Jul 19, 2006, at 4:13 AM, David Golden wrote: * Laugh at code that gets its slashes wrong (*cough* Test::Pod *cough*) I thought I'd fixed your slashie problems long ago. No? Please lean on me if not. -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Kwalitee metric: Community support channels

Just a wild thought... Would it be useful to check for references to community support channels like mailing lists, IRC channels, public bug trackers and official web pages? One way to do this could be to look for relevant keywords in the META.yml file or to do simple scanning of a SUPPORT se

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Andy Lester wrote: On Jul 19, 2006, at 4:13 AM, David Golden wrote: * Laugh at code that gets its slashes wrong (*cough* Test::Pod *cough*) I thought I'd fixed your slashie problems long ago. No? Please lean on me if not. http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=17892 It

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

On 7/19/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andy Lester wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2006, at 4:13 AM, David Golden wrote: > >> * Laugh at code that gets its slashes wrong >> (*cough* Test::Pod *cough*) > > I thought I'd fixed your slashie problems long ago. No? Please lean on > me i

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

demerphq wrote: On 7/19/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Laugh at code that gets its slashes wrong Thats a strange one, how often is this really a problem on win32? I cant think of many times when thats been a problem. It's not so much the frequency as the fact that it hits

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:21 AM, David Golden wrote: http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=17892 It's here, with a one-line patch from Yves included. It looks like the switch away from File::Find did in one of the assumptions in the test file. Fixed in 1.26, which I just uploaded to

Re: Module Signatures

Hi Andreas, * Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 08:35]: > By the way, I liked your summary of the situation in your > posting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and I wonder how we > could promote the web of trust on CPAN which clearly is the > only way forward. > > Maybe we need a perlish kind

Re: use Tests; # ?

* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-19 15:10]: > How is it pretty obvious which ok() failed when you have fifty > ok tests in a file (with interleaved test setup and teardown > infrastructure) and the only information you have to go on is > > not ok 23 Have you ever tried running your tests i

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For example, who's to say what constitutes a bad version of an installer For the moment that's probably me, since I hold the release manager's hat :) And given the state of the code before the big bug fixing series that happened

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > Excuse me? Where did I say the code was "broken"? Wasn't that the implication when you said you've seen misleading line numbers many times? > use Test::More tests => 3; > > sub my_ok { >     ok($_[0],$_[1]); > } I don't know why you'd expect t

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

Jonathan Rockway wrote: I see two resolutions to this problem: 1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is extremely inconvenient, but not a terrible demand. If other authors are like me, they accumulate small minor changes to their modul

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > Excuse me? Where did I say the code was "broken"? Wasn't that the implication when you said you've seen misleading line numbers many times? > use Test::More tests => 3; > > sub my_ok { > ok($_[

Re: Module Signatures

If we decided to make a big awareness push, we’d probably get the prolific CPAN contributors covered well very quickly, and then it’s a matter of continual evangelism to keep the web expanding. Sounds great, but speaking as one of the aformentioned "prolific CPAN constributors" ther

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is the philosophy of M::I. Authors (i.e. experienced developers) are inconvenienced in preference to users when things are broken and don't work well together. The M::I philosophy is that users shoul

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 09:28, Fergal Daly wrote: > On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > > > sub my_ok { > > > ok($_[0],$_[1]); > > > } > > I don't know why you'd expect this to report the right line numbers; this > > code re

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-19 18:30]: > What Kwalitee REALLY does is acknowledge that it's hard for > authors to keep track of all the niggly details, and summarise > all the things they need to fix across their entire set. +1 Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Andy Lester wrote: (... many things ...) And if you still have time or inclination to make CPANTS rules, have at it. Don't worry about the game. CPANTS is not about the game. The game is just a cute way to make a subset of authors pay more attention to cleaning their own cages. What CPANTS

Re: Kwalitee metric: Community support channels

Salve J Nilsen wrote: Just a wild thought... Would it be useful to check for references to community support channels like mailing lists, IRC channels, public bug trackers and official web pages? One way to do this could be to look for relevant keywords in the META.yml file or to do simple

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 09:28, Fergal Daly wrote: > On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > > > sub my_ok { > > > ok($_[0],$_[1]); > > > } > > I don't know why you'd expect thi

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:01, Fergal Daly wrote: > Let me rephrase that. What's wrong with the author's expectation that > he can use the his standard programming toolkit and get sensible > results? > > Something is broken but I don't see why it must be the test script. Perhaps then the expect

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Don't worry about the game. But that's all I hear about is the game. It's all game game game game. -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Lessons from the test function parameter placement quibbles?

On 7/19/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its not Test::More's job to enforce style. The more things are > optional the more useful to more people it is. What about someone creating a module Test::HaveNames or similar that if added to a test file will add a last test being ok only i

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Andy Lester wrote: Don't worry about the game. But that's all I hear about is the game. It's all game game game game. The subset that like the game, also like to talk. The ones that don't care about the game, don't care to tell you about it. But one day they are going to discover CPANTS

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:01, Fergal Daly wrote: > Let me rephrase that. What's wrong with the author's expectation that > he can use the his standard programming toolkit and get sensible > results? > > Something is broken but I don't see why

Re: Real Kwalitee, or please stop spending time thinking about CPANTS

Andy Lester wrote: Don't worry about the game. But that's all I hear about is the game. It's all game game game game. Just because people talk about the rules of the game doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit to having people playing the game. Look at anything from Perlmonks to WoW. M

Re: Tap Streams

On 7/18/06, Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The dependency on the stream interface is not necessarily bad; it would just mean pushing the decoupling up a level: let the stream abstract away the details of reading bits from some source. Your above example would allow: my $parser = TAP

Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer

Hi! On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:27:30PM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote: > domm: What do you think? Is this a good metric? If so, would you like to > include the plugin in the distribution or do you want me to upload a > separate distribution? I've added your code to CPANTS (with some minor modif

some CPANTS news

Hi! I've found some tuits to spend on CPANTS, so I changed the whole author rating thing (aka the CPANTS game). I've split the metrics into core metircs and optional ones. At the moment, the only optional metric is 'is_prereq'. I've also changed the kwalitee rating from absolut to relative (i.e.

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 7/19/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > Excuse me? Where did I say the code was "broken"? Wasn't that the implication when you said you've seen misleading line numbers many times? No. I didnt imply anything. I spelled it out quite cl

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 7/19/06, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 19/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 06:03, demerphq wrote: > > > Excuse me? Where did I say the code was "broken"? > > Wasn't that the implication when you said you've seen misleading line numbers > many

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 15:17, demerphq wrote: > On 7/19/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Excuse me? Where did I say the code was "broken"? > > > > Wasn't that the implication when you said you've seen misleading line > > numbers many times? > > No. I didnt imply anything. I spell

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:35, Fergal Daly wrote: > A correctly documented bad user experience is still a bad user > experience. What possible justification is there for not being able to > easily use subroutines in test scripts? Who broke your fingers? You can use subroutines in test scripts.

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 19/07/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then i can find the test _easily_. No heurisitics, no BS with poorly documented vars in Test::Builder. And speaking of $Test::Builder::Level at me let me ask a question, how many are going to read Test::Builder to get the line numbers from tests i

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 7/20/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 15:17, demerphq wrote: > On 7/19/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. I didnt imply anything. I spelled it out quite clearly. Fine, then you said "quite clearly" that it was broken. The whole reason this thre

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:35, Fergal Daly wrote: > A correctly documented bad user experience is still a bad user > experience. What possible justification is there for not being able to > easily use subroutines in test scripts? Who broke you

stack traces

I have svn commit access but no idea how to use it prooperly so attached is a 5 line patch to Test::Builder to make it say things like 1..2 not ok 1 # Failed test in stack.t at line 4. # Called from stack.t at line 8. not ok 2 - wibble # Failed test 'wibble' # in stack.t at line 5. # Ca

Re: use Tests; # ?

* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-20 01:25]: > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:35, Fergal Daly wrote: > > It's already done! Test::Builder already knows how to find > > where the user script jumps into Test::XXX land. All I'm > > saying is that instead of just outputting that 1 frame, > > outpu

Re: stack traces

Fergal Daly wrote: I have svn commit access but no idea how to use it prooperly so attached is a 5 line patch to Test::Builder to make it say things like I think I would vote for this, but maybe with a setting or environment variable to enable it and leave it off by default. Maybe $Level cou

Re: use Tests; # ?

On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > Simple question. Given this code: > > sub foo { > my $thing; > is($thing->x(), "x"); # line 4 > is($thing->y(), "y"); > } > > $t1 = Thing->new(1); > foo($t1); # line 9 > $t2 = T

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 18:10, Fergal Daly wrote: > On 20/07/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > > > Simple question. Given this code: > > > > > > sub foo { > > > my $thing; > > > is($thing->x(), "x"); # line 4 > > >

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > Simple question. Given this code: > > sub foo { > my $thing; > is($thing->x(), "x"); # line 4 > is($thing->y(), "y"); > } > > $t1 = Thing->new(1); > foo($t1); # line 9 > $t2 = Thing->new(2); > foo($t2); > > lets say the first

Re: use Tests; # ?

On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:38:46AM +0200, demerphq wrote: > Now i consider "wrong" to be different from "broken" or "buggy". To me > broken and buggy mean that the reporting doesnt do what its supposed > to do. But since I know that what its supposed to do is report where a > given Test::Builder b