Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On 6/12/2013 1:46 AM, Tony Cook wrote: > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:26:13PM -0400, David Golden wrote: >>> Yes, you have stated this position before. Do you also have something >>> to say to Karl’s detailed objections, now that he has addressed several >>> of these aforestated points (on *merit*, which you kept demanding) and >>> shown some of your claims to be false, or at the very least debatable? >> >> I didn't find anything that changes the fundamental difference of >> opinion we seem to have about pod lint tests. >> >> Karl claims that these tests are the equivalent of TODO and should be >> kept for that reason. They are not. TODO tests warn but do not fail. >> These tests fail. (Even *fixing* a known issue causes a fail.) > > The existing entries in t/porting/known_pod_issues.dat act as TODO > tests. > > You'll only see failures if: > > a) you happen to fix an issue - great, you've fixed a TODO, regenerate > the file to un-TODO it. This is similar to the way normal TODO tests, > they don't fail the build, but they do appear in the test summary. And, this was a flaw in podcheck. Fixing something shouldn't cause tests to fail. Note that I said "was", because Father Chrysostomos very recently, without fanfare, fixed this flaw. Now, if all unexpected results are fixes, a real TODO is generated which doesn't fail the build, but appears in the test summary. > > b) you happen to introduce a new issue - either fix the issue > (preferred), or regenerate the file to add a new TODO. > > Tony >Thread Previous | Thread Next