On 10/09/2015 09:01 AM, Milan Kubík wrote:
I write faster than I read. The issue at hand here is diffeerent use
On 10/08/2015 02:50 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
Perhaps we could use pytest's expected fail (xfail) or skip marker.
 It would prevent test from failing in the report and once the
underlying issue is fixed, it will raise as an unexpected pass.
On 10/08/2015 02:39 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 10/08/2015 02:08 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Please don't add any more trac fields, there is too many of them
On 10/08/2015 11:18 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
That's actually a great point. I personally would like tickets to
have one more
field: "workaround" containing the address of a workaround in the
"path_to_the_file:line_number" or better even - a commit id of this
so that once the ticket is resolved, we could easily find what to
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:12:37AM +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote:
As per discussion with Martin Basti, it was decided that this
will only be applied to the current 4-2 branch, not to the
When the ticket is addressed and these workarounds are no longer
needed -- what is our process for finding these workarounds and
reverting them, so that the tests test the real, expected
That sounds like a reasonable plan for this issue.
upstream the issue itself will (supposedly) be solved
Except currently it's not, so (IIUIC) you will keep having
nondeterministic failures in master.
I was mostly interested in the general approach that we have to
workarounds -- how do we track them, how do we make sure they don't
stick in tests forever, even after the issue was already properly
Keyword may serve better for now...
new trac field for a few workarounds per year is not worth it.
It could be used as a temporary solution, once the issue is fixed, we
would remove the mark from the test. This would probably need some
workflow to be defined for these cases.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code