* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 03:00]: > So I read two primary statements here. > > 1) Anything unexpected is suspicious. This includes unexpected > success. > > 2) Anything unexpected should be reported back to the author. > > The first is controversial, and leads to the conclusion that > TODO passes should fail.
The first doesn’t seem controversial to me; everyone agrees, I think, that passing TODOs merit investigation in some sense or other. > The second is not controversial, but it erroneously leads to > the conclusion that TODO passes should fail. The second one wasn’t primarily proposed that I could see at all. Some people brought it up, but it was not a particularly central part of the discussion. Eric mentioned asking the author, as part of investigating TODO passes (which as I mentioned I think we all agree about). That seems like a reasonable position to me; how it implies that TODO passes should count as failures, I don’t understand. > So what we need is a "pass with caveats" or, as Eric pointed > out, some way for the harness to communicate it's results in > a machine parsable way. I thought that was already the overall thrust of the discussion. I agree completely, in any case. > Maybe "Result: TODO_PASS" is enough. WFM. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
