develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2003

Re: 5.8.2 perldelta

From:
hv
Date:
October 30, 2003 17:21
Subject:
Re: 5.8.2 perldelta
Message ID:
200310310124.h9V1OrD11980@zen.crypt.org
Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> wrote:
:Nicholas Clark wrote:
:
:>>Dave, please see my followup to p5p. The patch 21496 is the one that broke 
:>>mp1 test suite.
:> 
:> 
:> I have reverted this change. I'll reconsider an improved version
:> for 5.8.3.
:
:Thanks Nick.
:
:> Both remain in blead. (until/unless Hugo says otherwise)
:
:For the blead case, does the test that I've posted seem to be a valid one that 
:shows that this patch breaks things?
:http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2003-10/msg01457.html
:Hugo?

I think it is valid, but not sufficient.

First, it doesn't test the original problem (as discussed in the thread
starting:
  http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2003-09/msg00929.html
). The way the test is written, you could handily fix that by modifying
the loop to say:
  for my $expected_failure (1,1,0) { ... }

(With that change, previous behaviour is to fail test 3 of 6, new behaviour
is to fail test 5.)

Also, the test doesn't show that the real file is actually loaded when
success is reported, only that it doesn't pitch an error. That could be
fixed easily enough by adding some more code to the nick.pm file it writes.

That makes 7 tests, all of which I think perl should pass. If that can't
conveniently be achieved for 5.8.2 I agree that it makes sense to keep
(but document) the old bug rather than to introduce a new one.

It is important to stress also that the success cache is still appropriate,
and I do not suggest that it would be valid to extend the loop further to:
  for my $expected_failure (1,1,0,1) { ... }

As always, patches welcome. :)

Hugo



nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About