| Summary: | Pod Coverage checking for no public subs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Project Infrastructure | Reporter: | Mark Tompsett <mtompset> |
| Component: | QA tools | Assignee: | Mark Tompsett <mtompset> |
| Status: | Failed QA --- | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | minor | ||
| Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | hayleypelham, jonathan.druart, josef.moravec, m.de.rooy, martin.renvoize, nick, tomascohen |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| See Also: | https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19929 | ||
| Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
| Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
| Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: | ||
| Circulation function: | |||
| Attachments: |
Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case
Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case |
||
|
Description
Mark Tompsett
2018-03-07 19:27:00 UTC
Created attachment 72519 [details] [review] Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case Currently, bug 19929 fails QA Test tools, but it makes no sense. TEST PLAN --------- 1) in kohaclone branch apply 19929 2) Run the following commands: kshell /home/vagrant/qa-test-tools/koha-qa.pl -v 2 -c 1 -- This will fail with POD coverage messages. exit 3) apply this patch to qa-test-tools 4) re do step 2 -- POD coverage messages will be cleared up. Created attachment 72521 [details] [review] Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case Currently, bug 19929 fails QA Test tools, but it makes no sense. TEST PLAN --------- 1) in kohaclone branch apply 19929 2) Run the following commands: kshell /home/vagrant/qa-test-tools/koha-qa.pl -v 2 -c 1 -- This will fail with POD coverage messages. exit 3) apply this patch to qa-test-tools 4) re do step 2 -- POD coverage messages will be cleared up. Moved to SeeAlso for 19929 to allow testing, only needed for QA Mark, what about:
} elsif ( scalar @{ $after->{subs} } == 0 ) {
# This is perfectly okay.
If there are no subs anymore, do not complain about pod coverage.
Note that no subs means no 'public' subs; there may still be subs like _type with an underscore.
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #4) > Mark, what about: > > } elsif ( scalar @{ $after->{subs} } == 0 ) { > # This is perfectly okay. > > If there are no subs anymore, do not complain about pod coverage. > Note that no subs means no 'public' subs; there may still be subs like _type > with an underscore. Because, if you cut out a function, I rather fall to the next check, then just allow out right cuts. I can't recall the test case I hit that made me want to do both. Probably something about increasing, then decreasing in the same patch set. It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the tests did not fail. (In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #6) > It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the > tests did not fail. Actually, on second look the first patch of 19929 did not apply cleanly. I'll request a rebase and then test this again if you deem it still necessary. (In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #6) > It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the > tests did not fail. Actually, on second look the first patch of 19929 did not apply cleanly. I'll request a rebase and then test this again if you deem it still necessary.(In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #7) > (In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #6) > > It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the > > tests did not fail. > > Actually, on second look the first patch of 19929 did not apply cleanly. > I'll request a rebase and then test this again if you deem it still > necessary. I now see that it's been pushed to master, so nevermind. Sorry for the noise everyone. Please provide tests Mark. |