Test::Pod::Coverage tests...

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:12 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Chris Weyl <cweyl at alumni.drew.edu> wrote:
> > My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage
> > tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what
> > their result is.  If they're present, we should conditionalize the
> > tests (e.g. %_with_pod_tests magic or some such), but not insist on
> > them by default.
> 
> So, to follow up to myself here, given the lack of comments I'm
> inclined to approve 237883 without insisting on Test::Pod::Coverage
> due to T::P::C not testing the _functionality_ of the package.  One
> last chance to scream :)

I'd rather include it. Simply because the Pod coverage tests don't test
anything useful today doesn't mean they won't in the future, and by
letting it slide now, we increase the chance that it will slide by
unnoticed in the future.

But I'm not really torn up either way. I'd rather say "test everything,
useful or not" to make sure we cover everything than trying to judge
usefulness of tests on a test by test basis. Blanket policies help me
sleep easier at night. :)

~spot