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 perldoc output #21

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 8, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble commented Jan 4, 2016

just a small idea to test if perldoc can parse POD and produces the correct output

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 5, 2016

Owner

Great idea!

However, because perldoc is included in the perl core, I am wary of using modules that aren't also part of core perl in any part of its Makefile. Is there a way to implement the test without using Test::Output? Perhaps by quoting some of it inline, or perhaps redirecting the perldoc output into a file and running a regex on its content?

Just kind of spitballing here as far as what might work best.

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 5, 2016

Great idea!

However, because perldoc is included in the perl core, I am wary of using modules that aren't also part of core perl in any part of its Makefile. Is there a way to implement the test without using Test::Output? Perhaps by quoting some of it inline, or perhaps redirecting the perldoc output into a file and running a regex on its content?

Just kind of spitballing here as far as what might work best.

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble Jan 5, 2016

Thanks for your comment! That makes sense, I'll try to figure something out

hatorikibble commented Jan 5, 2016

Thanks for your comment! That makes sense, I'll try to figure something out

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble Jan 5, 2016

So the tests now relies only on core modules. Also I tried to treat the path names as platform-neutral as possible, but I have no way to test this.

Can you use cpantesters.org without making an official release to run this on different operating systems?

hatorikibble commented Jan 5, 2016

So the tests now relies only on core modules. Also I tried to treat the path names as platform-neutral as possible, but I have no way to test this.

Can you use cpantesters.org without making an official release to run this on different operating systems?

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 6, 2016

Owner

Yes I can package and publish a test release

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:48 PM, hatorikibble notifications@github.com wrote:

So the tests now relies only on core modules. Also I tried to treat the path names as platform-neutral as possible, but I have no way to test this.

Can you use cpantesters.org without making an official release to run this on different operating systems?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 6, 2016

Yes I can package and publish a test release

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:48 PM, hatorikibble notifications@github.com wrote:

So the tests now relies only on core modules. Also I tried to treat the path names as platform-neutral as possible, but I have no way to test this.

Can you use cpantesters.org without making an official release to run this on different operating systems?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

mrallen1 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2016

@mrallen1 mrallen1 merged commit c87be2b into mrallen1:master Jan 8, 2016

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 8, 2016

Owner

I will be publishing a new test release soon - within the next 2 days for CPANT purposes.

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 8, 2016

I will be publishing a new test release soon - within the next 2 days for CPANT purposes.

@hatorikibble hatorikibble deleted the hatorikibble:test_module_pods branch Jan 8, 2016

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble commented Jan 8, 2016

Thanks!

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 10, 2016

Owner

OK. I released 3.25_01 to CPAN today. We'll see what kind of reports come back from CPANTs! Thanks again.

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 10, 2016

OK. I released 3.25_01 to CPAN today. We'll see what kind of reports come back from CPANTs! Thanks again.

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble Jan 12, 2016

Thanks for preparing the test release! But I just looked at reports e.g. http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/3e8177a6-b77e-11e5-b156-f89cfbd2507e it seems the new test is not included?

hatorikibble commented Jan 12, 2016

Thanks for preparing the test release! But I just looked at reports e.g. http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/3e8177a6-b77e-11e5-b156-f89cfbd2507e it seems the new test is not included?

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 12, 2016

Owner

Oh goodness, sorry. I forgot to update the MANIFEST in the release. That's been fixed and I just published 3.25_02

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 12, 2016

Oh goodness, sorry. I forgot to update the MANIFEST in the release. That's been fixed and I just published 3.25_02

@mrallen1
@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 14, 2016

Owner

Interesting - mostly windows and some BSD flavors.

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 14, 2016

Interesting - mostly windows and some BSD flavors.

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble Jan 15, 2016

damn you windows ;-) Sorry but now I am stumped.. At the moment I don't have any windows box to test the errors. This changes when my paternity leave ends in April, then I could use the machines at work to investigate these issues further. The probölems with the BSD-flavours are of a different kind and my knowledge of BSD is rather limited..
So I am afraid I have to revisited this test at a later time..

Another possibility would be to skip this test via $^O in Windows and on the BSD<->perl combinations, but that's just a dirty workaround ;-)

hatorikibble commented Jan 15, 2016

damn you windows ;-) Sorry but now I am stumped.. At the moment I don't have any windows box to test the errors. This changes when my paternity leave ends in April, then I could use the machines at work to investigate these issues further. The probölems with the BSD-flavours are of a different kind and my knowledge of BSD is rather limited..
So I am afraid I have to revisited this test at a later time..

Another possibility would be to skip this test via $^O in Windows and on the BSD<->perl combinations, but that's just a dirty workaround ;-)

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 15, 2016

Owner

Yeah I am wary of disabling the test just for WIndows / BSD. I think what I'm going to do is this: I'm going to push this test on to a new branch, and then revert master. When/if you have time/interest to look at the test failures on Windows, we can revisit the branch.

Sound fair?

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 15, 2016

Yeah I am wary of disabling the test just for WIndows / BSD. I think what I'm going to do is this: I'm going to push this test on to a new branch, and then revert master. When/if you have time/interest to look at the test failures on Windows, we can revisit the branch.

Sound fair?

@mrallen1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrallen1

mrallen1 Jan 15, 2016

Owner

P.S. Congratulations on paternity leave. :)

Owner

mrallen1 commented Jan 15, 2016

P.S. Congratulations on paternity leave. :)

@hatorikibble

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hatorikibble

hatorikibble Jan 16, 2016

Thanks ;-)

The idea with the branch sounds good to me. I'm sorry that so far I caused more work for you than actual help, but at least it's an interesting learning opportunity for me.. ;-)

hatorikibble commented Jan 16, 2016

Thanks ;-)

The idea with the branch sounds good to me. I'm sorry that so far I caused more work for you than actual help, but at least it's an interesting learning opportunity for me.. ;-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment