On 2/22/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/22/07, alancfrancis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So what we're saying is it's "understood" that a few tests may or may > > not fail depending on platform, and unless that's what I'm directly > > seeking to fix, I should just ignore it for now (while I'm working on > > something different) and as long as the same tests fail when I'm done > > as failed when I started, thats 'okay' (for some definition of okay). > > Wow. I have no idea what you said in this sentence. > > What I'm saying is simple: some Rails unit tests will always be broken if > they rely on consistent ordering when there is none (like with hashes). > Although it's not high priority (the codebase is not defected, just tests), > eventually they should get fixed (but not with the #7614 approach). > > What I'm also saying is: don't sweat about it. Concentrate on the real > defects (if there are any). > >
What you're saying is "simple" but incorrect. I doubt anyone on the Rails core team would agree that broken tests aren't real defects or that fixing them isn't a high priority. Chad --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
