Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Granted a bug report would be nice but given DateTime::Format::DateParse looks like about 50 lines of pure perl code you really have to wonder why it has 10 fails and 3 passes on cpan testers.

    To me it seems bug reports are about getting stuff fixed and cpan ratings is about warning people about modules to avoid/encouraging people to use working/supported modules. Two very different things.
    • First, having 10 fails and 3 passes doesn't mean anything. If there is one buggy release and ten people test it, you get 10 fails. If 100 people tested it, you might have a 100 fails. The number of fails is meaningless.

      Second, my point was that if you see a test failure you should report it through channels that are likely to help the author fix it. CPAN Ratings is not that channel.
      • Sure it means something. I was only talking about the most recent release (at the time 0.2) which was released over a year ago. The ratio of pass to failure is an easy way to quantify quality. Kinda meaningless but I'm too lazy to read every line of code under DateTime.

        Saying users should do stuff is kinda like saying module authors should do stuff. In an ideal work authors and users would work together in harmonious hormonity but this aint an ideal world. If Mark wants DateTime::Format::DateParse to pass i
        • If he rants without checking whether a bug has been logged and whether the author has reacted at all (and if not, logging one and giving the author due time), then his rant is pretty well meaningless.

          I want to know what the code quality is like, and if it’s decent but has bugs, whether the author is responsive when problems arise. That is useful information.

          The fact that it fails tests isn’t anything I couldn’t see at first glance from the very same distro info page on search.cpan.o []

          • The rant on its own is fairly pointless but because of the review the module now passes its tests and installs correctly using CPAN. The quality of the module code hasn't been improved but the quality of the module has.

            If all a person has the time/inclination to contribute is a rant is it not better to do so than do nothing?
            • I suppose it’s better than doing nothing, although I’m not even sure about that. We’re not exactly setting the bar very high there, are we?

              But it’s still no contribution. Someone filed a bug and the author resolved it within the hour. The review rant had sat there for 5 days, accomplishing nothing.

              Then consider that registering an account on CPAN Ratings and posting a “review” requires a noticably greater committment than anonymously filing a bug. Make your own call.