If one (such as myself :) were to checkout Bugzilla and then immediately run the tests, 001compile.t will fail 3 times because Config.pm is looking for the shutdownhtml param which won't exist in a non-installed directory.

Grrrrrr. Whats happening is that the 'require' of CGI.pl is checking the shutdownhtml param, but this happens before the Bugzilla::Config init code runs. I need to swap orderings arround a bit; this is only temporary until Bugzilla::CGI happens, anbd the check moves there.

Actually, no - I was wrong. This is, in fact, WONTFIX checksetup.pl needs to do updaing of old params, which means that we can't load new ones first. If we can't load new ones, then we can't cope with the file not existing. Lets just fix checksetuptorun w/o problems, and then update tbox. (Bugzilla::CGI will move the shutdownhtml check to creating a new CGI object, but it will still need to acess the Maintainer for Bugzilla::CGI errormessages which must happen at BEGIN time)

Now that bug 123957 is fixed, tinderboxes should run checksetup before running tests.

To me, this is backwards... even when installing. I'm gonna wanna run the tests to make sure everything is working before I install it (ie, run checksetup.pl). For this purpose, we should probably have a .t file that checks for the existence of the required modules (but that's another bug :)

Our tests aren't functional tests - the presense of lack of a spelling mistake will not affect the results. Once we have functional tests, then a database will be required to run them... It is, of course, possiblew that we could have checksetup create/run on a test db (and we probably will) but for teh moment....

Can't we configure it to only fail on a GetParam? Why is -c running code anyway?

-c runs code because -c runs BEGIN blocks, and |use| are effectivly BEGIN blocks. ACtually, I just looked at this again, and I have a fix. The problem is that packages should not be requiring globals.pl/CGI.pl themselves. This is really bad if they do so after the package line (because stuff is then in the wrong namespace), but its not a good idea anyway. Fix coming.

Comment on attachment 97728 [details] [diff] [review] patch r=joel Would like a 2xr from someone more expert on the implications of style decisions.

Comment on attachment 97728 [details] [diff] [review] patch I'm not an expert, but I can't see any problems with this (as long as each caller requires CGI.pl/globals.pl) before the .pm's... r2=jake

Checked in.