[Dbix-class] ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08 (0.08100_RC2)

[Peter Rabbitson]

On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Andreas Mock wrote:
> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: "Peter Rabbitson" <rabbit+dbic at rabbit.us>
> > Gesendet: 05.04.09 02:52:53
> > An: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <dbix-class at lists.scsys.co.uk>
> > Betreff: Re: [Dbix-class] ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08 (0.08100_RC2)
> >
> > I am currently traveling, do not have the ability to tend to my email.
> > Nevertheless - please send any problems you have to this list. Either
> > someone else will pick up the lead, 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> as Peter proposed I send it to the list. And probably Matt is also reading
> here.
> 
> When I do a 'make test' for SQL::Abstract (1.51) as a building block for the
> newest DBIC I get the following errors (?):
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------
> PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
> t/00new............ok
> t/01generate.......ok
> t/02where..........ok
> t/03values.........ok
> t/04modifiers......# SQL expressions differ
> #      got:  WHERE ( ( x != ? OR x != ? OR x != ? OR x != ? ) )
> # expected: WHERE x != ? AND x != ? AND x != ?
> # differing in :
> # OP [OR] != [AND] in
> # left: x != ? OR x != ? OR x != ? OR x != ?
> # right: x != ? AND x != ? AND x != ?
> #
> # BIND values differ
> #      got: [
> #           '-and',
> #           1,
> #           2,
> #           3
> #         ]
> # expected: [
> #           1,
> #           2,
> #           3
> #         ]
> t/04modifiers......ok 1/116# SQL expressions differ
> #      got:  WHERE ( ( x LIKE ? AND x OR ? ) )
> # expected: WHERE (x != ? OR x >= ?) AND x LIKE ?
> # differing in :
> # OP [LIKE] != [PAREN] in
> # left: x LIKE ?
> # right: (x != ? OR x >= ?)
> #
> # BIND values differ
> #      got: [
> #           'x%',
> #           {
> #             '>=' => 2,
> #             '!=' => 1
> #           }
> #         ]
> # expected: [
> #           '1',
> #           '2',
> #           'x%'
> #         ]
> t/04modifiers......ok
>         4/116 unexpectedly succeeded
> t/06order_by.......ok
> t/07subqueries.....ok
> t/08special_ops....ok
> t/09refkind........ok
> t/10test...........ok
> All tests successful (4 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED).
> Files=10, Tests=1998, 10 wallclock secs ( 7.57 cusr +  0.43 csys =  8.00 CPU)
> ----------------------------------------------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The test summary says all test successful, but the output is saying something different, isn't it?
> I don't know if I have to be concerned about that output.
> 

No, this is harmless. What you are seeing is the output of a TODO block.
Currently SQLA::Test does not suppress its diag() output even when within
a TODO block, thus you are seeing the mismatch, but it is not counted
towards failed tests. Patches to _sql_differ_diag() and _bind_differ_diag()
in SQL::Abstract::Test are more than welcome.

Are there any other issues with SQLA/DBIC apart from the above annoyance?