develooper Front page | | Postings from March 2005

Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META

Randy W. Sims
March 29, 2005 23:30
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
>>A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet 
>>mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete 
>>roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed 
>>requirements. Or should we bail, for example, during ./Build test if 
>>there are any test_requires failures? Or continue as is and just let it 
>>fail when it tries to use the missing requirements?
> Continue.  Nothing's more frustrating than a system which refuses to even
> try to go forward when some checklist is incomplete.

Hmm, I was actually sitting here playing with it again. But I was 
leaning more towards the 2nd option. The first option of bailing at 
Build.PL time obviously doesn't make sense as you can complete a build 
without running test. But does it make sense to test when a required 
testing module is missing?

$ perl Build test
Error: Missing required module(s) for testing:

Well, I guess it could since you could still run some tests. But what 
about when building:

$ perl Build build
Error: Missing required module(s) for building:

I would think if a module was required for building, then it will fail 
without that module.

Or if not an error, should we at least spit it out as a warning? What 
about 'conflicts'? 'recommends' gets a mention at Build.PL time; I don't 
see any point in mentioning it again.


Note: there is a problem in mainline with argument processing with no 
argument long options, eg `perl Build test --verbose` or equivalently 
`perl Build test verbose=1`. I haven't looked into it yet. Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About