Re: Some more t/scripts tests
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> It's possible I'm being overly picky here, but I have to admit that I'd
> prefer it if the test script and the changes to existing files as a
> result of issues found by the script were two commits rather than being
> bundled in to one.
Do you have any special reason? I've nothing against doing it the way you
say, but by including both changes in the same commit it makes a clear
point as to why those changes were made and based on what.
>
> Similarly, whilst having the code examples used in the POD be valid is a
> good thing, some of the changes don't quite feel right; for instance:
>
> - check_maintainer ($maintainer, $field);
> + check_maintainer my ($maintainer, $field);
>
> Again, I'm possibly being overly picky.
Ok, I'll stop the hackish and only do rightish :).
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I always had trouble with the POD test stuff that checks the syntax of
> the embedded code because it requires things like declaration of
> variables, but a real code excerpt from a running program isn't going to
> declare variables directly above the call.
>
IMO the cost of declaring the variables was lower than not testing the code
at all. But it would be nice if 'use strict' wasn't used.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Reply to: