Created attachment 5755 [details] [review] patch
Patch still applies to master. How can this be used?
Created attachment 6989 [details] [review] Bug 6986 - update perltidy with new official style generated by running 'perltidy -npro -opt' modified: xt/perltidyrc Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>
QA comment: what does this patch do (it generates xt/perltidyrc, I see that, but what it this file made for) ? How can I use it ?
@Paul: a perltidyrc file can be used like: perltidy --pro=xt/perltidyrc **/*.pm or find C4 -name '*.pm' -print -exec perltidy --pro=xt/perltidyrc {} \
(In reply to comment #5) > @Paul: a perltidyrc file can be used like: > perltidy --pro=xt/perltidyrc **/*.pm > > or > find C4 -name '*.pm' -print -exec perltidy --pro=xt/perltidyrc {} \ Yes, I know, but it was not my question. My question was the same as Katrin one in fact: How to test this patch ? Marking "failed QA" for now, as I don't see what this patch would add to Koha. I'll be happy to push it once I understand !
Mason, Could you please provide a test plan for this?
Created attachment 17777 [details] [review] Bug 6986 - add example perltidyrc file to Koha xt/perltidyrc generated by running 'perltidy -npro -opt' to test... - apply patch $ git bz apply 6986 - tidy a random file using the default 'wall' style $ perltidy -npro ./install-CPAN.pl -o ./aa - tidy a random file using the ./xt/perltidyrc profile $ perltidy -pro=./xt/perltidyrc ./install-CPAN.pl -o ./bb - compare the 2 output files are identical $ diff aa bb |wc -l 0 Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>
(In reply to comment #7) > Mason, > > Could you please provide a test plan for this? finally... test plan added :)
Hi Mason, if I understood right from the discussion in IRC this file just sets the defaults that perltidy uses - wouldn't it be less confusing to just remove the file?
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #10) > Hi Mason, > if I understood right from the discussion in IRC this file just sets the > defaults that perltidy uses - wouldn't it be less confusing to just remove > the file? yeah, i agree... this bug can be closed, i think :)