> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:48 PM, trondd <tro...@kagu-tsuchi.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Actually, rereading what I quoted, I see you're concerned with unmasking
> false positives, which can be manually rerun in isolation to reproduce.
> My thought still stands for the flip-side where a test fails due to a
> previous test.
I think determining a false negative *is* a false negative would require
basically the same steps:
* Run the test in isolation.
* Did it fail? If yes, this is probably not a false negative. If not,
you could have a false negative.
* Try to reproduce the steps that caused it to fail the first time (you
have a record, e.g., on your console, in your logs, etc.).
* Can you reproduce it? If you can, you probably have a false negative.
Otherwise, something else is off.
Not an exact science by any means, but a start.
Unless I misunderstood your question.
--
Scott Cheloha
