develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2020

Re: Add a -K run time switch to enable "Kover" mode for Devel::Kover

Thread Previous
February 1, 2020 10:04
Re: Add a -K run time switch to enable "Kover" mode for Devel::Kover
Message ID:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:03, demerphq <> wrote:

> (16:15:54) pjcj: dmq: Are you looking for something to work on? I've had
> something I wanted to do for a while now but haven't quite found the time.
> (16:16:31) pjcj: I want to make
> optionally conditional on !in_require so that I can provide coverage
> information for top-level statements in modules
> (16:17:31) pjcj: I'd be very happy for someone else to do it :)
> (16:48:37) dmq: checking
> (16:49:33) dmq: can you give me a wee bit more context?
> (16:53:28) pjcj: Yeah - if you have a statement in a module, an attribute
> with a sub in moose or a route definition in dancer or mojo, for excample,
> then the optree gets freed as soon as it has been compiled and run. This
> makes it impossible for Devel::Cover to generate coverage data for those
> statements and subs.
> (16:53:42) pjcj: This is a model which is becoming increasingly popular.
> (16:54:17) pjcj: Telling perl not to free those optrees means that we can
> later interrogate them and get the coverage information.
> (16:54:42) pjcj: But we don't want this on normal runs when the optrees
> are useless after being run.
> (16:55:40) pjcj: So some sort of switch (-D?) to keep those optrees
> around is what I'm after
> (16:57:04) dmq: ok, so what is the relationship to !in_require
> (16:57:24) dmq: I think i follow everything but that reference... (now
> that you explained more)
> (16:59:15) pjcj: It's only when in_require is true that I need to not
> delete the optree
> (16:59:43) pjcj: Now it might be that a more general solution could have
> value, but I don't know what the use cases would be for that
> (17:01:04) pjcj: It also might be that there are better solutions, but
> this was suggested to me by arc and the proof of concept worked
> (17:03:27) dmq: right, i clicked right after i asked. makes sense
> (17:03:59) dmq: do you care how such a mode is activated? iow, does it
> have to be a perl switch? could it be an env var? or just a function called
> in a begin?
> Implemented as -K. I almost think that -K should also inject 'use
> Devel::Cover;' but then we would have to dual life Devel::Cover.
> Forgot the branch name. Sorry. See



perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

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