Am Montag, 12. September 2016 um 10:08:24, schrieb Guenter Milde <mi...@users.sf.net> > On 2016-09-10, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Samstag, 10. September 2016 um 08:03:37, schrieb Guenter Milde > > <mi...@users.sf.net> > >> On 2016-09-09, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Dear Kornel, > > >> * Can we rename "suspiciousTests" to "invertedTests", please? > > > Sure. Almost alike the original name has been (revertedTests) > > Fine (especially, as ctests calls the process "inversion"). > > > >> * Do you still need the "suspendeTests"? What for? > > > Yes, we need them. This tests will not be executed with the call 'ctest > > -L export'. > > suspendeTests were introduced for the "less urgent" test cases like files in > the attic and export with Xe/LuaTeX and 8-bit TeX fonts when there were >100 > test errors.
My understanding is that they are suspended because of difficult to solve,
therefore
we do not try to tests them every time.
> In the meantime, we know the particular problem for most of the suspended
> tests.
> Some were fixed. Others require inversion (we know the problem is a
> wontfix or a bug on trac).
>
> How many of the suspendedTests are still failing?
73% tests passed, 21 tests failed out of 79 (this means 58 failing)
So, 21 of them could be removed from suspiciousTests.
> Do we really still need the suspension or could we lift it?
>
> If we want to keep it, it would be important to have a way to clearly define
> tests that are "suspended" AND "inverted".
ATM, we have it. All suspended are inverted.
> Thanks
> Günter
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
