On 2015-11-04, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 um 19:27:06, schrieb Guenter Milde > <mi...@users.sf.net> >> On 2015-11-04, Kornel Benko wrote: >> > Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 um 15:36:45, schrieb Guenter Milde >> > <mi...@users.sf.net>
>> ... >> >> Not only, with "suspending" I also mean "The outcome is of no value >> >> for finding new bugs or regressions until someone solves the known >> >> bug ...". >> >> However, we usually know what the outcome should be if the bug is >> >> solved: if the expected outcome is "pass", this test should not be >> >> inverted. >> > Here we disagree. Matter of taste I suppose. For me the test fails >> > _now_. We don't care now (because we know what's going on etc.). >> > Therefore the test is to be inverted as to not catch unwanted >> > attention. >> I still do not understand the reasoning. It will not catch attention if >> it is suspended, that is why it should be suspended. > It is suspended _only_ if you select testcases with the '-L' parameter. OK. My idea was that suspended testcases are skipped by default. ... > Sure, but look into suspendedTests, there is only 1 regex (for now, I > know) selecting from the inverted tests. Maybe it is indeed a matter of taste. The advantage of your approach is, that it is a small change to the exisisting/previous setup. As you are doing the work, you shall have the final say. Just two thoughts: * In your implementeation, the 1 regex (for now) rather points to "fragile" tests, some of which are "suspended" (i.e. temporarily ignored). Could you name the file "fragileTests" reduce confusion? * How can we distinguish a "good" inversion (the test should fail) from a "bad" inversion (the test should pass but currently does not). Günter
