use Perl

• Not so bad (Score:1)

  by srezic (8057) on 2007.12.11 14:52 (#59397) Journal

  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 problems which you cannot control, like bugs in the toolchain modules causing FAILs in the tested module (I've seen such cases with some ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Module::Build and Test::Harness versions), problems with some perl versions (this was often the case with the development perl 5.9.x), bad testers setup...

  It would be nice to have a way to retract invalid test reports, but in the current testers infrastructre it's not possible.

  Reply to This

  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Alias (5735)

    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: (Score:1)

      by srezic (8057)

      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?