[Koha-devel] [QA] 2 short QA questions

[Jared Camins-Esakov]

Jonathan,

I have 2 questions for the QA team.
>
> 1/ About bug 8687, a proposed patch (
> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=12713&action=diff)
> removes perlcritic warnings. This way of doing is particularly brutal, it
> completely removes the code :)
>
> So we have 2 solutions :
> - To propose a patch to replace ALL
>   eval { require "$FindBin::Bin/../kohalib.pl" };
> with
>   my $lib = "$FindBin::Bin/../kohalib.pl"
>   eval { require $lib};
> in the misc scripts.
> Like this, perlcritic is happy...
>
> - We add a prerequisite for the misc scripts : the PERL5LIB environment
> variable has to be set with the koha path and we delete these lines.
>

I'd prefer we fix our perlcritic configuration. Quoted requires have
legitimate uses. Barring that, I think I prefer the first option, provided
it is *really* equivalent. On the other hand, if we're requiring the user
to have KOHA_CONF set, perhaps there's no reason that PERL5LIB shouldn't be
required as well...

Okay, I guess I don't actually have an opinion on this, other than to note
that any perlcritic fixes need to be thoroughly tested, especially those
involving eval {}s. Inductive proofs that a given change does not break any
functionality would be particularly welcome.


> 2/ Recently I suggested a followup (to fix QA issues) for a bug (bug 7067)
> and I switched the status to 'passed qa'. I thought it was easier to let
> the RM review a simple patch instead of asking for a new sign off and
> another QA. I understand that we don't want to have patches without review
> and test. But in this case (and in most cases when I suggest a new patch
> while passing QA) it is a simple patch and starting again a new iteration
> (SO + QA) burn off energy and/or could block a patch for several weeks in
> this status.
> Maybe this point is a non-problem and will be fixed with new status :)
>

Ordinarily I'd take a follow-up patch that fixes QA problems without
additional signoffs. In this case I asked for additional signoffs because
there were so many comments on the bug I was concerned I might miss
something when testing. There had been 103 comments when I sat down to
review the patches, which is a lot of scope for me to miss a
previously-identified edge case or regression.

Regards,
Jared

-- 
Jared Camins-Esakov
Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445
(e-mail) jcamins at cpbibliography.com
(web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20121109/05bff63d/attachment.html>