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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The growing problem of core modules with non-trivial FAILs 3 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I think you should take a closer look at the reasons for the fails, e.g. by looking at the CPAN Testers Matrix [radzeit.de] to find patterns in the failures.

    For the mentioned distributions it looks like:

    • Scalar-List-Utils: FAILs only with devel perl
    • YAML: mostly only devel and old perls have FAILs
    • File-Spec, Exporter, base: looks OK
    • Test-Simple: granted, there are some unexpected red spots
    • File-Temp: 0.18 completely OK, new problems with 0.19

    I also don't think you should target for 100% PASS. There are always pro

    • I'm not sure I like the idea of retracting reports, because who is to say what is invalid?

      I know some situations where authors have said reports are invalid for things like not working with Perl 5.005...

      • Re:Not so bad (Score:1)

        by srezic (8057) on 2007.12.11 17:18 (#59401) Journal
        If you look at the Tk-804.027 reports, then you see a lot of FAIL reports which are sort-of invalid: testers who don't have a running X server, hence almost all tests fail. Sure, the test suite could check first if there's a running X server (in fact, this is done for Tk-804.028-tobe). Well, now it's more work for me to find the legitimate reports.

        Maybe not retracting reports, but have some means of commenting them would be enough?

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.