RFC -- perl test subpackage macros

[Marcela Maslanova]

I was thinking also about removing e.g. win32::api from requirements
automatically. But I'm not sure if it's worth it. If it's only one
module which we surely don't need, then it's maybe useless.

Also it would be great if we have this filtering will be mentioned
on page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl
But I can document it later on wiki if you prefer.

----- "Chris Weyl" <cweyl at alumni.drew.edu> wrote:

> I've been meaning to do this for ages, but I've finally updated
> /etc/macros.perl with an initial set macros to assist in the
> near-automatic generation of -tests subpackages.  They can also be
> found at:
> 
> http://gist.github.com/284409
> 
> (If we start needing to really fork/edit, I'll switch it to a real
> repo rather than a gist.)
> 
> The point here is to be able to quickly and easily validate an
> installed system, or to do smoke testing against upgrades.  Several
> of
> the "modern perl" suites (e.g. Moose, Catalyst, DBIx::Class, etc) are
> very interdependent, and an upgrade of one package can break another.
> (e.g. Class::MOP and Moose, Moose and Catalyst::Runtime, etc, etc.)
> Having these tests easily installable and executable seems to be a
> key
> first step in any sort of validation framework like this.
> 
> These should be considered experimental at this point; they should
> always be conditionalized like %perl_default_filter, and their
> behavior may change based on feedback / actual usage.  That being
> said, I've been using these locally for the last month or so with no
> show-stopper issues I'm aware of.
> 
> A couple notes:
> 
> * The %perl_subpackage_tests or %perl_default_subpackage_tests must
> be
> explicitly invoked.  They play no role in a build unless invoked.
> * They should be invoked in the same way the filtering macros are,
> that is conditionalized, and before the first %description.
> * No tests subpackage dependency RPM metadata is currently generated,
> and autoreq/prov for the subpackage is disabled.
> * Executable bit is set on *.t, and
> * Shbang lines are normalized using ExtUtils::MM_Unix->fixin().
> * Tests are installed under %{_libexecdir}/perl5-tests/<Dist-Name>
> * Noisy.  The macros, particularly fix_shbang_line, generate a great
> deal of output.
> 
> I intend on creating a small helper package to assist in
> testing/validating installed configurations, but wanted to get these
> out there for feedback before doing so.  These macros are not
> perfect,
> but are at a point where we can have constructive feedback on them.
> In particular, I'm hoping to hear back on the choice of the tests
> directory and RPM dependency metadata.
> 
> The perl-Moose, -Class-MOP, and the -SQL-Translator packages have
> been
> (...are being) rebuilt to demo this.  Note that the tests are not
> 100%
> good-to-go with this; some expect write permissions where they
> execute, some expect other files to be around, etc, but this is to be
> expected and can be handled with upstream...  Right now my main
> thrust
> is to get a solid framework in place.  :)
> 
>                                            -Chris
> -- 
> Chris Weyl
> Ex astris, scientia
> --
> Fedora Extras Perl SIG
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
> perl-devel mailing list
> perl-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel