use Perl

• Coverage! (Score:1)

  by frew (9054)

  Arguably the best metric wouldn't be amount of tests/passing tests, but the coverage of passing tests. That would certainly be slow, but it would work best.
  
  That's probably not yet possible with rakudo, but it will certainly work eventually.

  --
  --fREW
  http://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    I'm not so worried about slow (the cron job has all night!), but currently the limit is that we can't, as you yourself point out. Other than that, I agree fully.

    Hm, I don't know enough about coverage -- haven't done it much myself. To me, the immediate question, in the spirit of the ones I asked in the post, would be "is it always right to punish a module author for not having 100% coverage?".
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by frew (9054)

      Well, it's probably not always possible to get 100% coverage, but if a single test gets 100% coverage (possible with simple modules) I don't think that it should lose points.
      
      On the other hand I recently adopted a module on CPAN that originally just had basic use tests and some autogenerated pod tests. It didn't test the basic functionality AT ALL. It always passed tests on all platforms, but that's because it didn't have any real tests. I'd say that it should have gotten a low ranking for something li

      --
      --fREW
      http://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com
      • Re:Coverage! (Score:1)

        by masak (6289) on 2009.11.24 6:04 (#71225) Homepage Journal

        Lastly, it would probably be best to make this as multiweighted as possible so it's hard to game without just making a good module :-)

        Yes. That's what I'm after: a metric that's hard to game, and that people can look at, saying "OK, I can do that. I agree that a project which satisfies those things should have a good score. Let's do this."

        Reply to This

        Parent