Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

cog (4665)

Journal of cog (4665)

Thursday July 08, 2004
04:22 AM

CPAN testing

[ #19743 ]

The latest release of Lingua::PT::Inflect dates from 20 May 2004... during this time, the module passed 3 tests (I'm talking about cpan-testers).

Two days ago, however, I received a report that it had failed on a test... the report said the module wouldn't work without Lingua::PT::Hyphenate, and it doesn't, but it also said I should add a line to Makefile.PL stating that (making use of the PREREQ_PM clause)... the problem is... that line is already there!!!

Am I missing something? Is this a bug in somebody else's code? :-| Any pointers, anyone? I'd be much appreciated :-|

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • This is a known, but elusive, bug in CPANPLUS.

    I've already created a ticket [cpan.org] for it. I've just added information from your post as proof that it persists in version 0.049.

  • This has been a bug in CPANPLUS for a while, and was logged in RT [cpan.org] 2 months ago. I believe Kane and Autrijus will be looking at this for the next release. Although this may appear to be a 0.48 issue, unfortunately there are additional issues with 0.49 that can prevent CPAN Testing, so upgrading is not always possible. However, I note that the report [perl.org] you refer to is tested with 0.49, so probably it is a bigger issue.

    Personally I try and make sure that the reports are correct and that false reports are not g

  • Ok, now I understand what's going on... Thanks, LTjake and barbie.

    Meanwhile, I take it as there's probably nothing to do about that failed test,
    is there? I mean, the page for that module will continue to state that it
    fails, when it doesn't... am I correct? :-|

    Is the problem kind of random? Or are just the machines testing modules
    randomly selected? :-) I suppose there is some chance that a new release may
    or may not fail... right?
    • Since no one has been able to track down the problem, it seems justified to call it "random."

      My own personal testing machine (cpansmoke at alternation dot net - i586-linux 2.4.22-4tr) tests all incoming distributions. Some people only test certain modules. Some might use CPANPLUS to install modules and have reporting turned on -- thus creating tester reports. So, i guess it varies quite a bit.

      As far as I can tell, once a report is sent, it's written in stone. But that one failed test is not something I'd