Re: SQL::Statement 1.31_001 dev-release and test rewrite

On 01/01/11 07:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2011.1.1 12:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>> Further I need some help on test rewrite (that's why you, Michael
>> Schwern, are on CC).
>> I'd like to rewrite step by step all tests like I did in t/06virtual.t
>> and t/08join.t. For this I
>> have to move the test main loop into the TestLib.pm and I would prefer
>> if I could setup
>> Test::More to print the file name and the line of the real test
>> (somewhere in the list of
>> tests - where the tests need some additional fields).
>
> There's one of a number of things you might be trying to do here.  Mainly I
> don't know what the "main loop" is.  If you rewrite the test how you want and
> show me, I can show you how to fix the file/line numbers.  Likely it will be a
> simple matter of C<  local $Test::Builder::Level = $Test::Builder::Level + 1>
> in your loop routine.

That's only one step - I want the line numbers of the test, and the test is
currently written as an hash-entry in a test-list.
Probably it's wiser to create an own "sql_test" sub which contains the code
from the test loop (see t/06virtual.t for an example).

> Also, your 1.31_001 alpha is actually $VERSION 1.32.  If this was intentional,
> I would recommend against prematurely increasing the actual $VERSION.  It will
> cause confusion with the real release, not everything respects the
> distribution version (ie. what's on the tarball), and it's odd to unpack
> Foo-1.23_01.tar.gz and get Foo-1.24.  Now that 1.32 is confused, I would
> recommend you skip 1.32 and the next alphas be 1.32_0x.  Then the final
> version be 1.33.

Yes, maybe - but this might confuse others ...
I had chosen this kind of file renaming according to xdg's blog entry
"version numbers should be boring".

> You're shipping .aspell.local.pws which looks like a local dictionary for a
> spell checker.  Intentional?

You had to ask Tux (Merijn) about this - he added that file.

> Finally, the disparity between the tarball name and the directory indicates
> that you're not using "make dist" to create your tarball.  This risks picking
> up things ignored by your MANIFEST.SKIP.

No - I did a "make test && mv $a $b"

/Jens