Re^5: Application Testing: Custom Module or Perl Test Files?

I'd like to see the addition of pod-coverage.t and pod.t like in Module::Starter

Walking the road to enlightenment... I found a penguin and a camel on the way.....
Fancy a yourname@perl.me.uk? Just ask!!!

Comment on Re^5: Application Testing: Custom Module or Perl Test Files?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Application Testing: Custom Module or Perl Test Files? by xdg (Monsignor) on Sep 09, 2005 at 20:04 UTC
Why? To more easily jack up a CPANTS Kwalitee score? That's a flame/religious war just waiting to happen, with plenty of people on both sides. ExtUtils::ModuleMaker is not Module::Starter. If you really want what Module::Starter gives, then use Module::Starter. -xdg Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.	[reply]
Re^7: Application Testing: Custom Module or Perl Test Files? by ghenry (Vicar) on Sep 09, 2005 at 22:22 UTC
No, that's not what I want to happen. I really like the idea of failing a module build because the docs aren't complete. This only comes from my role on the Fedora Documentation Steering Committee (FDSCo). I'll leave the war for others, as I have only just encountered them both today, and don't know enough about either :) Walking the road to enlightenment... I found a penguin and a camel on the way..... Fancy a yourname@perl.me.uk? Just ask!!!	[reply]