| 1 |
On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we |
| 3 |
> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test |
| 4 |
> suite that gives zero signal on whether I should add the stable |
| 5 |
> keyword? Even a one-line hin in the stabilization request would |
| 6 |
> be nice. As it is, I keep a list of known-to-fail packages and my |
| 7 |
> testing machinery tells me to not bother with FEATURES=test in |
| 8 |
> those case. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
IMO: Tests that are "expected to fail" should be killed. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You should either use RESTRICT=test to veto tests entirely ( which I |
| 14 |
don't favour ), or more carefully |
| 15 |
filter how the test suites get executed. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Tests that fail for non-reasons and are left in that state serve a |
| 18 |
disservice to any package that has them, because it encourages people |
| 19 |
to not run tests, and that encourages them not to see failures when |
| 20 |
the tests identify *real* issues. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
There's really no point in a test suite if "Failure is OK" is the |
| 23 |
standard you're targeting. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Kent |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives