https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 --- Comment #1 from M. Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> --- Created attachment 72519 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=72519&action=edit Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case Currently, bug 19929 fails QA Test tools, but it makes no sense. TEST PLAN --------- 1) in kohaclone branch apply 19929 2) Run the following commands: kshell /home/vagrant/qa-test-tools/koha-qa.pl -v 2 -c 1 -- This will fail with POD coverage messages. exit 3) apply this patch to qa-test-tools 4) re do step 2 -- POD coverage messages will be cleared up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 M. Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #72519|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #2 from M. Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> --- Created attachment 72521 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=72521&action=edit Bug 20357: Correct POD Coverage checking for zero sub case Currently, bug 19929 fails QA Test tools, but it makes no sense. TEST PLAN --------- 1) in kohaclone branch apply 19929 2) Run the following commands: kshell /home/vagrant/qa-test-tools/koha-qa.pl -v 2 -c 1 -- This will fail with POD coverage messages. exit 3) apply this patch to qa-test-tools 4) re do step 2 -- POD coverage messages will be cleared up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 Josef Moravec <josef.moravec@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josef.moravec@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nick@bywatersolutions.com --- Comment #3 from Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> --- Moved to SeeAlso for 19929 to allow testing, only needed for QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 --- Comment #5 from M. Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #4)

Mark, what about:

} elsif ( scalar @{ $after->{subs} } == 0 ) { # This is perfectly okay.

If there are no subs anymore, do not complain about pod coverage. Note that no subs means no 'public' subs; there may still be subs like _type with an underscore.

Because, if you cut out a function, I rather fall to the next check, then just allow out right cuts. I can't recall the test case I hit that made me want to do both. Probably something about increasing, then decreasing in the same patch set. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 Hayley Mapley <hayleymapley@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hayleymapley@catalyst.net.n | |z --- Comment #6 from Hayley Mapley <hayleymapley@catalyst.net.nz> --- It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the tests did not fail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20357 --- Comment #8 from Hayley Mapley <hayleymapley@catalyst.net.nz> --- (In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #6)

It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the tests did not fail.

Actually, on second look the first patch of 19929 did not apply cleanly. I'll request a rebase and then test this again if you deem it still necessary.(In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #7)

(In reply to Hayley Mapley from comment #6)

...

It looks like this isn't necessary anymore, at step 2 of the test plan the tests did not fail.

Actually, on second look the first patch of 19929 did not apply cleanly. I'll request a rebase and then test this again if you deem it still necessary.

I now see that it's been pushed to master, so nevermind. Sorry for the noise everyone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.