develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2007

Re: test skipping based on $Config{extensions} (was: Re: [PATCH]Re: [PATCH] Re: Win32 modules & cygwin)

Thread Previous
Steve Hay
March 14, 2007 06:06
Re: test skipping based on $Config{extensions} (was: Re: [PATCH]Re: [PATCH] Re: Win32 modules & cygwin)
Message ID:
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Craig Berry wrote:
>> On 3/13/07, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:43:29AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>>>> Steve Hay wrote:
>>>>> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:28:51PM +0000, Steve Hay wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks, applied as #30409.
>>>>>> Um, given Craig's comment in
>>>>>>, I think I'd
>>>>>> rather this were reverted.
>>>>>> Since TEST and harness automatically handle skipping known but not
>>>>>> built extensions' tests, $Config{extensions}-checking code
>>> shouldn't
>>>>>> clutter up the tests.
>>>>> I haven't investigated this at all yet, but I recall no so long ago
>>>>> Nicholas going through lots of test files and having tests skipped
>>> if
>>>>> modules weren't built.
>>>>> A quick look in Changes reveals quite a few such changes, e.g.:
>>>>> Skip Devel::PPPort tests if Devel::PPPort was not built:
>>>>> Skip re tests if re was not built:
>>>>> Skip B tests if B was not built:
>>>>> and others...
>>>>> I'm sure all those changes weren't unnecessary, but I've forgotten
>>> what
>>>>> the motivation for them was.  Whatever it was might also apply to
>>>>> Win32CORE and Win32API.
>>>> FWIW, Nicholas added the automatic skipping to TEST and harness in
>>>> so the behavior wasn't there at the time of the earlier patches
>>>> you mention.
>>>> Nicholas?  Was that intended to be in addition to or instead of
>>>> per-test skipping?
>>> It still makes sense to me to revert #30409, unless other people
>>> object.
>> I don't strongly object, but I don't see any harm in leaving it in.
>> More generally, I don't see any easy, maintenance-free way to do this
>> right.
> I'd like to be consistent, and it seems the easiest way to get and
> stay consistent is to rely on TEST and harness doing the right thing
> and {known_,}extensions being kept correct for all platforms.

I like consistency too, but we don't get consistency by reverting #30409 
unless we also revert other similar changes such as the three that I 
cited earlier (above) and doubtless lots of others too.

I don't have time to go through all the tests looking for such pieces of 
code right now, but if anyone else wants to remove all such needless 
cruft then I certainly wouldn't object.


Radan Computational Ltd.

The information contained in this message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems, please notify the sender immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. Note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Radan Computational Ltd. The recipient(s) of this message should check it and any attached files for viruses: Radan Computational will accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

Thread Previous Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About