Re: (Christian Weiske) PEAR QA tools page

Hello Laurent, Thanks for the checks. > PEAR_Info undocumented > It's the only one where I don't fully wrote external doc (as other of > my packages), but complete it for public release of PEAR_Info 1.7.0, > and give it available on PEAR manual [3]. That seems to be a bug in QA_Peardoc_Coverage. What I do know is that the standard way of naming package doc ids is "package.$category.$packagename-replace-underscore-with-dash" which are correctly detected in any way. The checks for "package.$packagename" are provided for BC only and do not always work well, because a lot of guessing takes place here. > Even if there is a problem (E_STRICT related) with HTML_CSS in your > log [4] there are no problem detected for Services_W3C_CSSValidator, > but you can still see no data (unit test) in [1] The problem here is the "all-suite". If one single test causes the pear suite to crash, it crashes. No further tests are executed. This happens here with HTTP_Session2 that crashes the whole thing. I originally implemented it to get coverage stats for whole pear - but with phing, you can combine the results of single tests which I will do in the future. Currently, my batch script suite http://svn.cweiske.de/ws.php/tools/pearqa/scripts/?rev=0&sc=0 is very "alpha" and desperately needs to be converted to phing. That'll happen definitely next year, but I can't tell you when. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc