search

chrstphrchvz / perl-tcl-ptk

Tcl::pTk - Interface to Tcl/Tk with Perl/Tk compatible syntax
https://metacpan.org/pod/Tcl::pTk
Other
8 stars 2 forks source link

avoid bogus FAIL reports such as ... #1

Closed vadrer closed 6 years ago

vadrer commented 6 years ago

avoid bogus FAIL reports such as http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/6b95e72d-6c16-1014-b416-eea88038f308

chrstphrchvz commented 6 years ago

Thanks for sending this in, as this helps Tcl::pTk catch up/be more consistent with what's improved in Tcl::Tk.

However I might still be confused over what kind of report exactly this is addressing. The particular report you link to is "UNKNOWN" rather than explicitly "FAIL". Would it be more precise if the comment in Makefile.PL for _die instead say that type of report is what is being addressed?

A few other beginner questions I have: are these UNKNOWN reports necessarily a "bad" thing? Does receiving an UNKNOWN indicate that someone is interested in running tests, but is (for example) unaware of the Tcl/Tk requirement? If so, is receiving an UNKNOWN report useful in prompting others to reach out to the tester to help satisfy the Tcl/Tk requirement and contribute useful reports?

vadrer commented 6 years ago

Given that Tcl::pTk is pure-perl, there should be no UNKNOWN at all

From: Christopher Chavez [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2018 5:49 AM To: chrstphrchvz/perl-tcl-ptk Cc: Konovalov, Vadim; Author Subject: Re: [chrstphrchvz/perl-tcl-ptk] avoid bogus FAIL reports such as ... (#1)

Thanks for sending this in, as this helps Tcl::pTk catch up/be more consistent with what's improved in Tcl::Tk.

However I might still be confused over what kind of report exactly this is addressing. The particular report you link to is "UNKNOWN" rather than explicitly "FAIL". Would it be more precise if the comment in Makefile.PL for _die instead say that type of report is what is being addressed?

A few other beginner questions I have: are these UNKNOWN reports necessarily a "bad" thing? Does receiving an UNKNOWN indicate that someone is interested in running tests, but is (for example) unaware of the Tcl/Tk requirement? If so, is receiving an UNKNOWN report useful in prompting others to reach out to the tester to help satisfy the Tcl/Tk requirement and contribute useful reports?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/chrstphrchvz/perl-tcl-ptk/pull/1#issuecomment-421677648, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHctkd0q4FySgMn83igY0r_ljEVSJfQks5ubbwDgaJpZM4WN5-B.

chrstphrchvz commented 5 years ago

Many FAIL reports showed up for Tcl::pTk 0.95 despite this change, because unlike Tcl::Tk, it turns out Tcl::pTk's Makefile.PL writes the Makefile before running the test for Tk (it seems this was done deliberately in 0.81: 07134e9ceb23b6076b3f14e16b49579f4bf41fa9).

I will likely reorder Makefile.PL (edit: done in dbf896f) to undo the change from 0.81 and prevent FAIL reports if Tk is missing (can't find package Tk) or there is no X server available (couldn't connect to display ""). Then this contribution will hopefully have the intended effect.