in reply to Re^2: Silence CPAN Testers on obviously broken platforms?
in thread Silence CPAN Testers on obviously broken platforms?
Nope, see http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/CPANAuthorNotes
exit 0 means Makefile.PL succeeded , so rating could PASS ,FAIL, or UNKNOWN, depends on subsequent steps
exit 2 means Makefile.PL died , so rating could be FAIL or NA depending on message
exit 0 and 'Makefile' not created , rating is UNKNOWN
exit 0 and 'Makefile' created, rating depends 'make' and 'make test' to determine PASS or FAIL
Now at one point the cpan testers reporting service mixed up these conventions I described, started treating NA as FAIL and UNKNOWN as NA or some such mix of results (not important now)...
So follow CPANAuthorNotes, to avoid FAIL, exit 0 to get UNKNOWN, or Devel::AssertOS to get NA
UNKNOWN is safer than NA, cause some Win32 modules can run on linux, and some day they might all run on linux :)
NA is like the faulty practice of parsing user-agent-string or testing browser version details to determine if the client supports cookies and ajax
UNKNOWN is like trying to set a cookie to see if cookies are supported or checking if document.XMLHttpRequest is available to know if ajax is supported
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^4: Silence CPAN Testers on obviously broken platforms?
by davido (Cardinal) on Nov 19, 2012 at 17:33 UTC |