On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:40 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:54:00PM +0900, Shmuel Fomberg wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me, when a cpan smoker / tester is trying to test a > module > > but fails to install a dependency, what happens? > The report will be discarded. >
So the module author is not even aware that he is relaying on problematic module. > > Who should I convince to make such a failure similar to test fail? > No-one, because it's not a test failure, it's a missing pre-requisite. The module failed to install. As a cpan author, I would have like to know about it. I don't think that the users care why it failed to install. So how would I fix the dependency problem if I don't even know about it? > > Or maybe mark it as failure to all the modules that depend on the failed > > module? > The failure may not matter to everyone though - it might only affect > people on a particular platform, or a particular version of perl, or who > use a particular version of a proprietary library, or who use a > particular compiler. That is true for a test failure too. and yet we send the reports. > I seek to do it because lately modules feel free to have deep > dependencies, > > a lot of modules have some small test failure percentage, and these add > up > > rather quickly. > > > > It is annoying to try and installed some new-shiny module, just to see > some > > dep^3 fails testing, and then to start investigating. > > This is why <http://deps.cpantesters.org/> and > <http://analysis.cpantesters.org/> exist. > And why would an author go visit these sites if he doesn't know that there is a problem? That for the analysis link, as I wasn't aware of that site. can be very useful. I remember that with the Data::ParseBinary I had to dig around an find which compilation option caused my tests to fail... that was not fun at all. Shmuel.
