Bug #34955 for Test-Pod: [PATCH] test description says file has no pod

Hi, Andy. The attached patch adds a few minor changes to Test-Pod dist. The most important of them is to detect when a tested file has no POD (which tests ok as it should) and to include that in the test decription. So a file "Foo.pm" which has correct POD will continue to emit pod_file_ok( "Foo.pm" ); a TAP line ok ? POD test for Foo.pm and for a file "foo.t" with no POD whatsoever, it will say ok ? POD test for foo.t (no pod) That corresponds to that piece of the patch: @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ $checker->parse_file( $file ); my $ok = !$checker->any_errata_seen; + $name .= ' (no pod)' if !$checker->content_seen; $Test->ok( $ok, $name ); ### Another issue was that at "all_pod_files_ok", the generated test description illustrated above was overriden by only the file name. The fix for this (if desirable) would be only: @@ -156,7 +157,7 @@ my $ok = 1; foreach my $file ( @files ) { - pod_file_ok( $file, $file ) or undef $ok; + pod_file_ok( $file ) or undef $ok; } return $ok; ### Also in the docs, the first definition of what Test::Pod understand by POD files (in all_pod_files_ok() description) does not match the one at all_pod_files(). The patch piece below reconciliate this: @@ -135,7 +136,7 @@ If C<@files> is empty or not passed, the function finds all POD files in the F<blib> directory if it exists, or the F<lib> directory if not. -A POD file is one that ends with F<.pod>, F<.pl> and F<.pm>, or any file +A POD file is one that ends with F<.pod>, F<.pl>, F<.pm>, F<.PL> and F<.t>, or any file where the first line looks like a shebang line. If you're testing a module, just make a F<t/pod.t>: ### And, at last, the MANIFEST had two entries for "t/pod/good-pod-script" and the patch cuts that. @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ t/missing-file.t t/pod.t t/pod/good-pod-script -t/pod/good-pod-script t/pod/good.pod t/pod/no_pod.pod t/selftest.t ### Best, Adriano Ferreira