Re^2: Different behavior running tests under prove vs. MB/EUMM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Different behavior running tests under prove vs. MB/EUMM by grinder (Bishop) on Nov 03, 2007 at 18:28 UTC
I have no doubt that you understand why `-l` works for you, but just to provide a counterpoint, I don't use `-l` for my own distributions, as I like putting the main .pm file in the base directory of the unpacked distribution, for the simple matter that it makes it a tad easier to pull into an editor. There are also distributions that munge the .pm significantly on its flight from `./lib` (or `.`) to `./blib`, or even generate it ex nihilo. In these circumstances, `-l` doesn't produce the same results as `-b`. That said, I understand why you like `-l`. It means you can edit the source .pm file, and run the `prove` test immediately, without having to run `make` (or `./Build`) in between. There's nothing worse than making a change to the module, and then spending considerable time wondering why it didn't fix the test suite :) • another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl	[reply]
Re^3: Different behavior running tests under prove vs. MB/EUMM by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 03, 2007 at 14:49 UTC
Doesn't that mean you have to do a make install before you can run the tests? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^4: Different behavior running tests under prove vs. MB/EUMM by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Nov 03, 2007 at 14:50 UTC
The directory lib/, not the stuff that use lib would find. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]