develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2013

Re: I made t/podcheck.t less sensitive and fixed various pod issues

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Karl Williamson
June 13, 2013 00:24
Re: I made t/podcheck.t less sensitive and fixed various pod issues
Message ID:
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 Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About