Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the CPAN-Testers-ParseReport CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 39458
Status: resolved
Priority: 0/
Queue: CPAN-Testers-ParseReport

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: SREZIC [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: (no value)
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: Different sort order when using ctformat yaml vs. html
With --ctformat=yaml oldest is shown first, but with --ctformat=html newest reports are first. I think both should use the same order, and it should be like the html order (newest first). Regards, Slaven
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #39458] Different sort order when using ctformat yaml vs. html
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:09:46 +0200
To: bug-CPAN-Testers-ParseReport [...] rt.cpan.org
From: andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR [...] franz.ak.mind.de (Andreas J. Koenig)
Show quoted text
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:52:32 -0400, "Slaven_Rezic via RT" <bug-CPAN-Testers-ParseReport@rt.cpan.org> said:
Show quoted text
> With --ctformat=yaml oldest is shown first, but with --ctformat=html > newest reports are first. I think both should use the same order, and it > should be like the html order (newest first).
Both follow the conventions that are contained in the files that I parse. Not sure who is to determine the one correct convention? -- andreas
On Sat Sep 20 15:10:31 2008, andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de wrote: Show quoted text
> >>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:52:32 -0400, "Slaven_Rezic via RT" <bug-
> CPAN-Testers-ParseReport@rt.cpan.org> said: >
> > With --ctformat=yaml oldest is shown first, but with
> --ctformat=html
> > newest reports are first. I think both should use the same order,
> and it
> > should be like the html order (newest first).
> > Both follow the conventions that are contained in the files that I > parse. Not sure who is to determine the one correct convention? >
ctgetreports is meant to be human-readable. So is the original cpantesters HTML output, but not the YAML output. I may also imagine that newer reports are potentially more interesting, especially if somebody is regularly looking at the results.
Done in 0.0.10. Thanks!