CPAN Pull Request Challenge #3
Conversation
Add t/92_pod.t that calls Test::Pod's all_pod_files_ok(). Test is skipped if Test::Pod is not available.
http://cpants.cpanauthors.org/dist/List-Compare suggests the addition of MIN_PERL_VERSION Perl::MinimumVersion was used to determine 5.6 as the minimum required version for all distribution modules.
pauloscustodio
changed the title
|
Thanks for taking the time to prepare this pull request. However, I'm not going to accept it. I have always disliked Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage since they tend to enforce one particular style of writing POD. I considered using them in my CPAN distributions ten years ago and concluded that they were more trouble than they are worth. In particular, unless one goes into the Makefile or Build file and specifies POD tests as "author-only", then any failures in POD formatting or failures to write POD for some specific section run the risk of having 'make test' fail -- failures which would then show up as red ink on cpantesters.org. I am, however, very willing to accept pull requests or patches for actual POD formatting errors. Thank you very much. |
|
I agree with you in what respects Test::Pod::Coverage, as it forces you to write a section for each module method. I have included it in some of my own distributions, but yor're right when you say it's too much trouble to keep it passing the tests. I do not agree in respect to Test::Pod, as it only tests for syntax errors in the POD files, which are too easy to slip by and end up in a CPAN distribution. The pull request I have submitted, BTW, passes the tests at the current master HEAD, and fails the tests before the POD fix of Pull Request #2, so it would have avoided the "1 POD Error" message at the end of https://metacpan.org/pod/List::Compare in the current CPAN version of your module. Of course, this is just my opinion, and you are free to accept or not my reasoning. |
Pull requests in the context of the CPAN Pull Request Challenge