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