in reply to Re: PREREQ_PM ignored by cpan-tester
in thread PREREQ_PM ignored by cpan-tester

Ignore it?

Yes, I do try to ignore false FAILs - but sometimes they get the better of me.

The number of these FAILs is now 4 (all from the same tester).
If he decides to test 20 different perl configurations then I'll end up with 20 FAILs - which is even harder to ignore.

If there's no suitable workaround that I can implement to circumvent these particular FAILs, then that makes them even more insidious.
The tester in this particular case is Peter Acklam. He has been responsive in the past, so I've notified him of the problem.

I also get other occasional false FAILS as a result of a different issue affecting only App::cpanminus::reporter, as far as I know.
For example see:
http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/78ab4860-c608-11e5-9eb0-875dfcf88752
http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/7955d258-c608-11e5-9eb0-875dfcf88752
http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/7a4a4ad6-c608-11e5-9eb0-875dfcf88752
All of those fail to compile, and should therefore report UNKNOWN. But they come back as FAIL.
Annoying as those ones are I at least can provide a workaround for them if I think it's worth the effort .... and worth the risk of getting the workaround wrong :-(

Cheers,
Rob

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: PREREQ_PM ignored by cpan-tester
by syphilis (Archbishop) on Feb 04, 2016 at 12:13 UTC
    The tester in this particular case is Peter Acklam. He has been responsive in the past, so I've notified him of the problem.

    Peter noticed that the false FAIL reports were specific to perl-5.14.x, and that the problem vanished if EU-MM was updated to version 6.58.
    The next release of Math::MPC will therefore specify EU-MM-6.58 as a PREREQ_PM, which should avoid these FAILs.
    There's nothing in the Math::MPC distro that actually needs version 6.58 or later, so this change is made solely for the purpose of avoiding a CPAN::Reporter bug. (I hope it doesn't inconvenience someone who is actually wanting to use Math::MPC ... I think that's unlikely.)

    The FAIL count because of this single issue has now risen to 42.

    Cheers,
    Rob
      The FAIL count because of this single issue has now risen to 42.

      Ah, you have the answer then. ;)

      Premature optimization is the root of all job security