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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Is there a reason for assuming all xt tests are "release tests"?

    I'm currently looking at using "xt" for all "extra tests", with "xt/release" for release tests, and "xt/slow" for slow tests.

    I'd want to run the release tests for both automated and release testing (as you've described), but I'd only ever want to run the slow tests if I'd explicitly asked for them.

    Now I could put them in yet another top-level tests directory, but that's getting messy, I'd rather keep all the "extra tests" in the "extra tests" directory.

    I could also add checks for AUTOMATED_TESTING and RELEASE_TESTING and so on to each test in the xt/slow directory, but that's adding still more boilerplate to each test file, with all the problems that cut-n-paste boilerplate code has.

    Of course my current distros all use Module::Build so this doesn't directly effect me, but if a convention is established, it will effect me eventually. (And getting release-tests working "right" in xt under Module::Build is causing me enough grief that I'd like to switch if something offered me a better alternative.)

    While it might not be the default behaviour, it would be good if there was the option to say "only these dirs of xt are release-tests, not the lot".