use Perl

• Hooray for teamwork (Score:2)

  by petdance (2468)

  I'm glad to see the extensions, Geoff. Now we just need brian to include it as an example file with Test::Pod.

  At this point, maybe brian should just create a Test::Pod::Distro based on this module to encapsulate all this code, so we module authors are not cut'n'pasting it everywhere.

  And don't you want to have the File::Spec::catfile call inside the if? Or can that throw an exception that you're wanting to catch?

  use Test::More;
  
  use File::Spec;
  use strict;
  
  eval {
    require Test::Pod;
    Test::Pod

  --
  

  --
  xoa
  • Re:Hooray for teamwork (Score:1)

    by geoff (2013)

    nope, you're right about the File::Spec stuff - I'm still working on my morning coffee :)
    
    teamwork++
    • Re:Hooray for teamwork (Score:2)

      by petdance (2468)

      And we should check *.pod and *.pl files as well. At the very least, Schwern's Test::Tutuorial is distributed as a .pod, not .pm.

      # I think this is right
      @files = File::Find::Rule->file()->name(['*.pm','*.pod','*.pl'])->in($blib);

      And if we REALLY want to be portable, then let's not rely on File::Find::Rule. It's not as if File::Find isn't still perfectly serviceable in this case.

      --
      

      --
      xoa
    • Re:Hooray for teamwork (Score:2)

      by petdance (2468)

      Thanks to Geoff Young for unwaving my handwave.

      use Test::More;
      
      use File::Spec;
      use File::Find;
      use strict;
      
      eval {
        require Test::Pod;
        Test::Pod->import;
      };
      
      my @files;
      
      if ($@) {
        plan skip_all => "Test::Pod required for testing POD";
      }
      else {
        my $blib = File::Spec->catfile(qw(blib lib));
        find(\&wanted, $blib);
        plan tests => scalar @files;
        foreach my $file (@files) {
          pod_ok($file);
        }
      }
      
      sub wanted {
        push @files, $File::Find::name if /

      --
      

      --
      xoa
      • pod_ok - pod_file_ok (Score:1)

        by markjugg (792)

        Thanks fur sharing this. Here's a small potential update: It looks like the Test::Pod docs are recommending using pod_file_ok instead of pod_ok.
        • Re:pod_ok - pod_file_ok (Score:2)

          by petdance (2468)

          Yes, they are now. pod_ok used to be the standard way. Now that I changed the guts to use Pod::Simple, pod_file_ok is the way to go.

          --
          

          --
          xoa
          • Re:pod_ok - pod_file_ok (Score:1)

            by geoff (2013)

            speaking of which, is the mandatory warning for pod_ok really necessary? personally, distribution pod tests are not important enough for me to require that end-users have the most recent version of Test::Pod (the test is for me, not for them), so I'd like to make the test as flexible as possible. throwing
            
            99pod.........ok 1/1# NOTE: pod_ok() is deprecated
            
            for users that have old versions of Test::Pod makes we module releasers look bad, and the only way around them is to either PREREQ_PM the newer mod
            • Re:pod_ok - pod_file_ok (Score:2)

              by petdance (2468)

              Well, I do indeed have plans to get rid of pod_ok, but I guess I can leave it in for the indefinite future. The big reason to get rid of pod_ok is that the "allow only these types of errors" parm is now meaningless.

              --
              

              --
              xoa
  • Re:Hooray for teamwork (Score:1)

    by marcel (3299)

    > At this point, maybe brian should just create a Test::Pod::Distro based on this module to
    > encapsulate all this code, so we module authors are not cut'n'pasting it everywhere.

    That's what Test::Distribution is for. I'm just making it more modular, adding options for checking PREREQ_PM, MANIFEST, exports and more. And I've taken some of code in these comments to make T::D more portable.