Okay, thanks Ed! Sorry for any churn on your buildbot there.
-Todd On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Ed Maste <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 July 2014 21:02, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had been operating under the assumption that a test marked XFAIL > (expected > > failure) that passes (which gets categorized as an "unexpected success") > > would fail the test run. I have recently learned in the last few days > that > > this is not true - the unexpected success does get captured in the logs > and > > does show up as a 'u' in the test run, but it doesn't cause the entire > test > > process exit code to fail in the way that one or more failed tests would. > > Hi Todd, > > I noticed on the FreeBSD buildbot that the run reports a failure for > unexpected passes. I agree with your change though and will switch > the FreeBSD tests that are being skipped to XFAIL as well. If that > causes grief on the buildbots we can look at having them accept > unexpected passes. > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
