http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=824690

Your Mother has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Pod::Coverage::Moose (0.02). Why The Following-

Test file

use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::Pod::Coverage;
use Test::More "no_plan";

pod_coverage_ok( "IsMoose",
                 { coverage_class => "Pod::Coverage::Moose" } );

[download]

IsMoose package file

package IsMoose;
use Moose;
has [qw( moo cow )] =>
    is => "rw",
    isa => "Str"
    ;

1; # (Update, added.)

=pod

=cut

[download]

Test output

> prove test-moose-pod.t -v
test-moose-pod.t ..
ok 1 - Pod coverage on IsMoose
1..1
ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=1,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr  0.00 sys +  0.21 cusr 
+ 0.01 csys =  0.24 CPU)
Result: PASS

[download]

Why isn't that failing? moo and cow are uncovered. This is a boiled down example. I tried several other permutations and my real code with Moose attribute methods and Roles and such are also passing as if it were being tested with plain Test::Pod::Coverage; e.g., only sub named {} are being checked at all.

Do I misunderstand what this does? Am I suffering from PEBCAK?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Does Pod::Coverage::Moose work or am I just being obtuse?
by Khen1950fx (Canon) on Feb 23, 2010 at 13:21 UTC
    I ran the tests, and they passed. I ran this script to see if it was working or not. I tested it with all the handles. The only one that really didn't work was why_unrated.
    #!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use Pod::Coverage::Moose;

my @mods = (
    'Moose',                
    'Pod::Coverage::Moose', 
    'Moose::Test',          
    'MooseX::Types',
    'Moose::Micro',
    'MooseX::Method'
);
foreach my $mod (@mods) {
    my $pcm = Pod::Coverage::Moose->new( package => $mod );
    print 'Coverage: ', $pcm->coverage, "\n";
}

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

      Thanks but even stripping it down to not running through Test::Pod::Coverage is still not behaving as I'd expect from the docs. This is the plain PCM behavior- 

      perl -MPod::Coverage::Moose -le '$pcm = Pod::Coverage::Moose->new(pack
+age => "IsMoose"); print $pcm->uncovered'
# Prints nothing...

      [download]

      I expect it to show moo and cow both as uncovered. :( I really like the idea of this module and I'd love to be able to get it to give "real" feedback about Moose attributes/methods.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        I been experimenting with this all day. What has been happening, for me at least, is that I've been adding things that I knew were covered then I'd call $pcm->covered. The module prints out all the methods that are covered and returns 1. On the other hand, when I call $pcm->uncovered on the things I knew to be uncovered, the module returned undef---it didn't print. I was expecting it to return the uncovered handles. The joys of "PEBKAC hell":).
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
Re: Does Pod::Coverage::Moose work or am I just being obtuse?
by webfiend (Vicar) on Aug 06, 2010 at 22:15 UTC

    The default behavior of Pod::Coverage when deciding what to look for (in _get_syms) is to ignore imported subroutines such as those generated for Moose attributes. So even though it sees the methods associated with the attributes, it drops them.

    Maybe Pod::Coverage could use a 'watchlist' argument for its constructor to explicitly specify methods that need pod entries even if they're imported from elsewhere. Then Pod::Coverage::Moose might be able to take advantage of that, sifting through class attributes to build an appropriate watch list based on those defined in the class rather than big meta-stuff like 'blessed' or 'confess'. 'IsMoose::cow'? On the watch list. 'IsMoose::meta'? Not on the watch list.

    The basic problem was reported as a regression a while back.

    I'll have to chew on this thought a little bit.

[reply]

Back to Seekers of Perl Wisdom