Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Theres another issue: coverage can depend upon presense of other modules,Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
not running on machines where all prereq modules are already installed,
i.e. on machines where one *wants* to install the module ? Let's add an
option to CPANPLUS so that it run Devel::Cover on any module that it
has to install and include the coverage information in the test report.
Not a bad idea. Issues I can think of...
* Devel::Cover is very slow, I don't know if you'd want it on all the time
like test reporting.
Right, this is slow, but for someone that want to know if the module is well tested, this information may help to gauge the quality (or the kwalitee) of this module. And for cpansmokers, I'd say speed has no importance.
ex Test::Warnings, being installed on testers boxes, those tests would be skipped otherwise,
and perceived coverage would suffer.
Also, its straightforward for authors to add cover_db/*.html to their MANIFEST,
resulting in the coverage reports availability on its CPAN page, under 'other files'
forex: (shameless plug) http://search.cpan.org/src/JCROMIE/Data-Dumper-EasyOO-0.04_03/cover_db/blib-lib-Data-Dumper-EasyOO-pm.html
That said, there no reason not to have 'testcover' as an option for cpan testers to select.
Its their machine and electricity, and would have some benefit w/o burden to the authors
(unless you count the 'why(ne) dont you include test coverage reports in your distribution ?' type questions)
