[Bioperl-l] Regarding Bio::Root::Build, was Re: bioperl reorganization

[Mark A. Jensen]

chiming in to +1 on this; seems very 'natural' (i.e. plugs into to the Perl 
Common Sense, approximated by perl core modules + CPAN)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Hartzell" <hartzell at alerce.com>
To: "Chris Fields" <cjfields at illinois.edu>
Cc: "Robert Buels" <rmb32 at cornell.edu>; "BioPerl List" 
<bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>; "George Hartzell" <hartzell at alerce.com>; "Mark 
Jensen" <maj.fortinbras at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] Regarding Bio::Root::Build,was Re: bioperl 
reorganization


> Chris Fields writes:
> > On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:14 PM, George Hartzell wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Fields writes:
> > >> On Jul 19, 2009, at 11:15 PM, George Hartzell wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Chris Fields writes:
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>> Prior to Module::Build the Makefile.PL we just looked for the
> > >>>> dependencies and reported back if they were missing; installation
> > >>>> of
> > >>>> those modules was left up to the user. [...]
> > >>>
> > >>> Chiming here a bit late to say that I really *like* it when we leave
> > >>> installing the modules to the user.  I'd often rather install them
> > >>> via
> > >>> e.g. the FreeBSD ports system instead of system, but how/why would
> > >>> BioPerl ever know that?
> > >>>
> > >>> g.
> > >>
> > >> That's a good point.  Leaving it up to the user does make things a
> > >> lot
> > >> simpler.
> > >>
> > >> The only downside is the onslaught of users who don't know why a
> > >> specific module doesn't work.  May be the reason this was added in?
> > >>
> > >
> > > If we keep our dependencies current and write use_ok() style tests for
> > > our modules so that
> > >
> > >   ./Build test
> > >
> > > fails when a dependency is missing I think that we've done our part of
> > > the job.  We might be able to pick up some automated way to check
> > > dependencies (stolen from the autodepend Dist::Zilla plugin or
> > > something) and increase our odds of staying on top of it.
> >
> > We have added some bits to the test suite (largely thanks to Sendu)
> > for checking these things for us, so tests requiring a specific module
> > are not run and a warning is issued.
> > [...]
>
> What I was describing is a layer simpler than what Sendu et al. have
> done.  In a module testing Foo, Bar::Bah, instead of
>
>  use Foo;
>  use Bar::Bah;
>
> use
>
>  BEGIN {
>    use_ok('Foo');
>    use_ok('Bar::Bah');
>  }
>
> and that way if there's some missing dependency that wasn't properly
> specified/dealt with then it's handled as part of the framework,
> "rather than just vomiting if its load fails" (in the words of the
> Test::More author).
>
> g.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>
>