[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Author Tests (AUTOMATED_TESTING, RELEASE_TESTING)



-=| Jonathan Yu, Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:48:35PM -0500 |=-
> Hi all:
> 
> So after some discussion with Alias in the toolchain coordination
> channel (the people working on Module::Install, Module::Build,
> Dist::Zilla, and to a lesser extent, ExtUtils::MakeMaker), the general
> consensus seems to be that using "RELEASE_TESTING=1" in general is a
> harmful thing to do, and instead we should prefer to build using
> "AUTOMATED_TESTING=1" only.
> 
> What this means is that Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage are likely
> not going to be run, whereas they are run now. It is clear that
> Test::Kwalitee and Test::Perl::Critic tests, when run, could cause
> some build failures down the line, so our standard is already not to
> run these because they might fail. By extension, Adam Kennedy contends
> that Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage are similar. Though these
> modules don't change often, if they do, it has the risk of failing
> where things were previously passing, resulting in FTBFS errors.

I agree that Kwalitee and Critic tests are likely to do more damage 
than good. Their purpose (AIUI) is to improve authors' writing skills, 
not guarantee the module works as expected. Coverage test is on the 
border for me. We want complete documentation, but some times the 
Pod::Coverage changes lead to mass failures, so I am inclined to drop 
that too.

Test::Pod is good. Its failure says that there is a problem with the 
documentation syntax and it is such a problem that will be noticed by 
our users. Additionaly, modules that fail the Pod tests are easily 
fixable, and these fixes are sent upstream, for the benefit of all.

I don't remember a change in Test::Pod to have caused mass build 
failures, so I'd like to keep this test when possible.

-- 
dam

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: