Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test HashBase.t fails with perl 5.19.3 through 5.19.11 #830

Open
andk opened this issue Apr 23, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Test HashBase.t fails with perl 5.19.3 through 5.19.11 #830

andk opened this issue Apr 23, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@andk
Copy link

andk commented Apr 23, 2019

Bisect points to v5.19.2-138-g137da2b05b; from that commit through to the end of the 5.19.x dev track the test HashBase.t fails for Test-Simple-1.302162 and as far as I can see for all Test-Simple 1.302xxx.

I have not sent any of the reports to cpantesters. Let me know if you need further details.

My motivation for writing this issue is that I had the itch to bisect through 5.19 for POD::Tested and could not do it with any version of Test::Simple that I tried.

@andk
Copy link
Author

andk commented Apr 24, 2019

I should have added that of course there are ways to supply the right versions of dependent modules such that POD-Tested becomes bisectable. So this in not the point. The point is that a high - river toolchain infrastructure module would do better if it covered the historical dev bleadperl ranges in order to make bisecting convenient and not a thing that costs manual intervention.

@andk
Copy link
Author

andk commented Apr 28, 2023

More context: POD-Tested is http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=POD-Tested%200.06.4. It is FAIL-only since perl v5.20. The breakage happened 2013 or 2014 between Test::More 0.98 and 1.001014. https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=115431 was the bug report against POD-Tested that caught my attention. It was filed 2016-06-18.

@wolfsage
Copy link
Contributor

FWIW, you should still be able to bisect using --no-module-tests I would imagine

@andk
Copy link
Author

andk commented Apr 28, 2023

Thanks, Matthew, for the suggestion. Will keep that option in mind next time I face such a situation. Actually, I was not talking about Porting/bisect-runner.pl but about bisecting in general. I should probably have considered using bisect-runner.pl.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants