I am currently working on a Mojolicious app using TDD on my Mac and I am getting a bit fed up of having to manually run my tests every time I change some code.
After doing some Rails development, I really started to like the automatic response I got from the autotest gem, and as wondering it there is a Perl equivalent or if there is some way to use autotest with Perl.
One possibility is the Test:: Continuous suite. It includes the autoprove command, which reruns the test suite after source file updates:
% sudo cpan Test::Continuous
% cd MyModule/
% autoprove
The Test module is your friend.
Take a look at Test::Simple too, or go take a look at all of the various Test modules at http://perldoc.perl.org/5.8.9/index-modules-T.html. If they're listed here, they're all part of the standard Perl distribution. In fact, if you write CPAN modules, you have to write a test suite using these Test modules to go with it.
Related
I'm writing a CI script to build a Perl library located at GitHub.
Now I do it this way:
cpanp i Module::Install # and other configure dependencies
perl Makefile.PL
make dist
cpanp i Foo-Bar-6.66.tar.gz
I want to create a PAR packages for all the dependencies I build. That's why I use cpanp.
Unlike cpanm ., cpanp i . is buggy and uses the name of the directory to name the distribution, which is incorrect. That's why I use this make dist step.
I can use something else as long as my PARs are built, of course. There is https://metacpan.org/pod/PAR::Dist#blib_to_par function which can in principle be called during any other build process.
The problem with my current approach is that:
the list of configure dependencies is maintained manually. I'd like to use some tool which does it automatically
on Windows make may be called gmake or dmake depending on perl version. I want to use an existing autodetection logic instead of rolling my own
Finally, I'd like autodetection of Makefile.PL vs Build.PL so I can copy-paste the code for different distributions
My question is: Is there any way to build local sources of a distribution either by using cpanp (this way would solve my problem) or in any other way which works for different versions of Windows Perl and builds PAR distributions of dependencies?
I managed to find a solution myself.
CPANPLUS comes with another tool besides cpanp named cpan2dist. cpan2dist --archive Foo-Bar-6.66.tar.gz works as intended - it builds distributions of dependencies and the current tarball, and autodetects the necessary build tool the way cpanp does.
To determine the real make you can use CPANPLUS::Config->new->get_prog('make'). It again uses the same autodetection logic as CPANPLUS so it's pretty robust.
I have a module I'd like to release to CPAN, and I like using dzil to do the packaging and releasing. However, the module relies on an external application, and while I know where it is installed on my machine, I'd like to ask users to input where it is installed on their machine. Having read Prompt user during unit test in Perl I see ExtUtils::MakeMaker::prompt does just what I want to do.
How would I incorporate that (or something similar) when using dzil?
The standard MakeMaker dzil plugin has no support for anything but a basic Makefile.PL. (Well, it can use File::ShareDir::Install, but that's its limit.) If you need more complex install-time behavior, you'll need to use something else.
I recommend my MakeMaker::Custom plugin. You write your own Makefile.PL, which can do anything that ExtUtils::MakeMaker is capable of, including prompt for information. You can still have dzil add things like your prerequisites at dzil build time, so you can still use AutoPrereqs. (Actually, I recommend ModuleBuild::Custom instead, but if you want to stick with MakeMaker, that's ok.)
Note: You should also allow the information you're prompting for to be supplied on the command line. This will help people who are trying to package your distribution using automated build tools. But that's a MakeMaker issue, not a Dist::Zilla one.
The user should not be installing via Dist::Zilla at all. It is an author-tool only, as its documentation explicitly says. Dist::Zilla is meant to build a distribution that is installed via EUMM or M::B.
Edit: Given your comment, I would instead say, it sounds like your build process isn't a good candidate for using Dist::Zilla, at least consistently. I would suggest using it to build it once more and then move to using the EUMM or M::B that it builds, modify it to your purposes and keep developing that.
If you're using ExtUtil::MakeMaker to install your distribution, then you can use the dzil plugin Dist::Zilla::Plugin::MakeMaker::Runner (that's a mouthful) to bundle a custom Makefile.PL with your dist instead of generating the default one.
That will allow you to use prompt to gather custom information from within the Makefile.PL if you need it.
I'm working on a personal Perl module to build a basic script framework and to help me learn more about the language. I've created a new module called "AWSTools::Framework" with ExtUtils::ModuleMaker via the command line tool modulemaker. I'm trying to figure out the appropriate way to test it during development.
The directory structure that was created includes the following:
./AWSTOOLS/Framework/lib/AWSTools/Framework.pm
./AWSTOOLS/Framework/t/001_load.t
The autogenerated 001_load.t file looks like this:
# -*- perl -*-
# t/001_load.t - check module loading and create testing directory
use Test::More tests => 2;
BEGIN { use_ok( 'AWSTools::Framework' ); }
my $object = AWSTools::Framework->new ();
isa_ok ($object, 'AWSTools::Framework');
If I try to run the script directly (either from the command line or inside my TextMate editor), it fails with:
Can't locate AWSTools/Framework.pm in #INC....
If I try to run prove in the ./AWSTOOLS/Framework directory, it fails as well.
The question is: What is the proper way to run the tests on Perl modules while developing them?
If you want to run a single test file, you need to tell perl where to find your modules just like you would for any other program. I use the blib to automatically add the right paths:
$ perl Makefile.PL; make; perl -Mblib t/some_test.t
You can also use prove to do the same thing. I don't use prove, but you can read its documentation to figure it out. The -b switch should do that, but I've had problems with it not doing the right thing (could just be my own idiocy).
If you're using the typical toolchain (ExtUtils::MakeMaker) it will be perl Makefile.PL to generate a makefile, then make test every time afterward. Those commands should be run from the root directory of the module. See http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?ExtUtils::MakeMaker#make_test
Edit: and don't do it all manually, or you will come to hate testing. (Well, more than usual.) You will also want to look at least briefly at Test::Tutorial and https://www.socialtext.net/perl5/testing
You may also want to ask the friendly* people in #perl or related channels on your preferred IRC networks.
*Not actually friendly
I actually think that Dist::Zilla is sufficiently flexible enough to allow you to use it for all development. If you aren't uploading to CPAN, just make sure you don't have [UploadToCPAN] in your dist.ini. Also make sure to [#Filter] it out of any plugin bundles which provide it.
Dist::Zilla may be too much to install for only one quick module that you aren't going to touch very often. If you have more than one dist in development then it is definitely worth a look.
You can easily interface it with your VCS using plugins. (Including Git)
You can create a plugin to deploy onto your server. Which would allow you to make sure that all your test files pass before allowing you to deploy ([TestRelease]).
If you don't like tabs in your source files, you can test for that without writing the test yourself ([NoTabsTests]).
Minimal dist.ini for non-CPAN dist
name = Your-Library
author = E. Xavier Ample <example#example.org>
license = Perl_5
copyright_holder = E. Xavier Ample <example#example.org>
copyright_year = 2012
version = 0.001
[GatherDir]
[PruneCruft]
[PruneFiles]
filename = dist.ini
filename = TODO.txt
match = ^.*[.]te?mp$
[NoTabsTests]
[TestRelease]
[CheckExtraTests]
[ModuleBuild]
[FakeRelease]
Test the dist:
dzil test
dzil xtest
If at a later date, you decide to upload it to CPAN:
Replace [FakeRelease] with [UploadToCPAN].
Get a PAUSE id, and set ~/.pause.
user YOUR-PAUSE-ID
password YOUR-PAUSE-PASSWORD
Run dzil release
DONE
In a quick attempt to help you, I would recommend looking at Testing Files and Test Modules.
Continuing to dig around and experiment, I've found the following two things which work for me:
Use prove -l in the './AWSTOOLS/Framework' directory. According to the prove perldoc page, it adds the "lib" directory to the path when Perl runs all the tests in the "t" directory.
To run the script individually/directly, I'm adding the following to the start of the script above the use Test::More line:
use FindBin qw($Bin);
use lib "$Bin/../lib";
This let's me run the script directly via the commad line and in my editor (TextMate). This is based off this page from the Programming Perl book.
Using the -l flag for prove seems very much like the correct thing to do.
As for the "use lib" solution, I doubt that's actually a best practice. If it was, I would expect that modulemaker would have created the 001_load.t test file with that to begin with.
I have an app that I pack into "binary" form using PerlApp for distribution. Since my clients want a simple install for their Win32 systems, this works very nicely.
Now a client has decided that they need to run all unit tests, like in a standard install. However, they still will not install a normal Perl.
So, I find myself in need of a way to package my unit tests for operation on my client's systems.
My first thought was that I could pack up prove in one file and pack each of my tests separately. Then ship a zip file with the appropriate structure.
A bit of research showed that Test::Harness::Straps invokes perl from the command line.
Is there an existing tool that helps with this process?
Perhaps I could use PAR::Packer's parl tool to handle invocation of my test scripts.
I'm interested in thoughts on how to apply either PAR or PerlApp, as well as any thoughts on how to approach overriding Test::Harness and friends.
Thanks.
Update: I don't have my heart set on PAR or PerlApp. Those are just the tools I am familiar with. If you have an idea or a solution that requires a different packager (such as Cava Packager), I would love to hear about it.
Update 2: tsee pointed out a great new feature in PAR that gets me close. Are there any TAP experts out there that can supply some ideas or pointers on where to look in the new Test::Harness distribution?
I'm probably not breaking big news if I tell you that PAR (and probably also perlapp) aren't meant to package the whole test suite and plethora of CPAN-module build byproducts. They're intended to package stand-alone applications or binary JAR-like module libraries.
This being said, you can add arbitrary files to a PAR archive (both to .par libraries and stand-alone .exe's) using pp's -a switch. In case of the stand-alone executable, the contents will be extracted to $ENV{PAR_TEMP}."/inc" at run-time.
That leaves you with the problem of reusing the PAR-packaged executable to run the test harness (and letting that run your executable as a "perl"). Now, I have no ready and done solution for that, but I've recently worked on making PAR-packaged executables re-useable as more-or-less general purpose perl interpreters. Two gotchas before I explain how you can use that:
Your application isn't going to magically be called "perl" and add itself to your $PATH.
The "reuse" of the application as a general purpose perl requires special options and does not currently support the normal perl options (those in perlrun). It can simply run an external perl script of your choice.
Unfortunately, the latter problem is what may kill this approach for you. Support for perl command line options is something I've been thinking about, but won't implement any time soon.
Here's the recipe how you get PAR with "reusable exe" support:
Install the newest version of PAR from CPAN.
Install the newest, developer version of PAR::Packer from CPAN (0.992_02 or 03).
Add the "--reusable" option to your pp command line.
Run your executable with the following options to run an external script "foo.pl":
./myapp --par-options --reuse foo.pl FOO-PL-OPTIONS-HERE
Unfortunately, how you're going to teach Test::Harness that "./myapp --par-options --reuse" is a perl interpreter is beyond me.
Cava Packager allows you to package test scripts with your packaged executables. This is primarily to allow you to run tests against the packaged code before distribution. However the option is there to also distribute the tests and test capability to your end users.
Note: As indicated by my name, I am affiliated with Cava Packager.
I want another developer to run a Perl script I have written. The script uses many CPAN modules that have to be installed before the script can be run. Is it possible to make the script (or the perl binary) to dump a list of all the missing modules? Perl prints out the missing modules’ names when I attempt to run the script, but this is verbose and does not list all the missing modules at once. I’d like to do something like:
$ cpan -i `said-script --list-deps`
Or even:
$ list-deps said-script > required-modules # on my machine
$ cpan -i `cat required-modules` # on his machine
Is there a simple way to do it? This is not a show stopper, but I would like to make the other developer’s life easier. (The required modules are sprinkled across several files, so that it’s not easy for me to make the list by hand without missing anything. I know about PAR, but it seems a bit too complicated for what I want.)
Update: Thanks, Manni, that will do. I did not know about %INC, I only knew about #INC. I settled with something like this:
print join("\n", map { s|/|::|g; s|\.pm$||; $_ } keys %INC);
Which prints out:
Moose::Meta::TypeConstraint::Registry
Moose::Meta::Role::Application::ToClass
Class::C3
List::Util
Imager::Color
…
Looks like this will work.
Check out Module::ScanDeps and the "scandeps.pl" utility that comes with it. It can do a static (and recursive) analysis of your code for dependencies as well as the %INC dump either after compiling or running the program.
Please note that the static source scanning always errs on the side of including too many dependencies. (It is the dependency scanner used by PAR and aims at being easiest on the end-user.)
Finally, you could choose to distribute your script as a CPAN distribution. That sounds much more complicated than it really is. You can use something like Module::Starter to set up a basic skeleton of a tentative App::YourScript distribution. Put your script in the bin/ subdirectory and edit the Makefile.PL to reference all of your direct dependencies. Then, for distribution you do:
perl Makefile.PL
make
make dist
The last step generates a nice App-YourScript-VERSION.tar.gz
Now, when the client wants to install all dependencies, he does the following:
Set up the CPAN client correctly. Simply run it and answer the questions. But you're requiring that already anyway.
"tar -xz App-YourScript-VERSION.tar.gz && cd App-YourScript-VERSION"
Run "cpan ."
The CPAN client will now install all direct dependencies and the dependencies of those distributions automatically. Depending on how you set it up, it will either follow the prerequisites recursively automatically or prompt with a y/n each time.
As an example of this, you might check out a few of the App::* distributions on CPAN. I would think App::Ack is a good example. Maybe one of the App::* distributions from my CPAN directory (SMUELLER).
You could dump %INC at the end of your script. It will contain all used and required modules. But of course, this will only be helpful if you don't require modules conditionally (require Foo if $bar).
For quick-and-dirty, infrequent use, the %INC is the best way to go. If you have to do this with continuous integration testing or something more robust, there are some other tools to help.
Steffen already mentioned the Module::ScanDeps.
The code in Test::Prereq does this, but it has an additional layer that ensures that your Makefile.PL or Build.PL lists them as a dependency. If you make your scripts look like a normal Perl distribution, that makes it fairly easy to check for new dependencies; just run the test suite again.
Aside from that, you might use a tool such as Module::Extract::Use, which parses the static code looking for use and require statements (although it won't find them in string evals). That gets you just the modules you told your script to load.
Also, once you know which modules you loaded, you can combine that with David Cantrell's CPANdeps tool that has already created the dependency tree for most CPAN modules.
Note that you also have to think about optional features too. Your code in this case my not have them, but sometimes you don't load a module until you need it:
sub foo
{
require Bar; # don't load until we need to use it
....
}
If you don't exercise that feature in your trial run or test, you won't see that you need Bar for that feature. A similar problem comes up when a module loads a different set of dependency modules in a different environment (say, mod_perl or Windows, and so on).
There's not a good, automated way of testing optional features like that so you can get their dependencies. However, I think that should be on my To Do list since it sounds like an interesting problem.
Another tool in this area, which is used by Dist::Zilla and its AutoPrereqs plugin, is Perl::PrereqScanner. It installs a scan-perl-prereqs program that will use PPI and a few plugins to search for most kinds of prereq declaration, using the minimum versions you define. In general, I suggest this over scanning %INC, which can bring in bogus requirements and ignores versions.
Today I develop my Perl apps as CPAN-like distributions using Dist::Zilla that can take care of the dependencies through the AutoPrereq plugin. Another interesting piece of code in this area is carton.