I understand we haven't much of a choice: +1 for disabling.
I wonder if there is a way to make it more evident for developers that they
need to run disabled tests locally by hand before making a PR.
It happened to me once or twice that I made a change that I knew was
covered by a test case, let
On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 07:59, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
>> I am also in favor of disabling them but maybe keep them running and have
>> them as expected failure?
> That sounds preferable -- but I'm not (personally) sure if it's
> possible. You know the CI
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 07:59, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
>
> I am also in favor of disabling them but maybe keep them running and have
> them as expected failure?
That sounds preferable -- but I'm not (personally) sure if it's
possible. You know the CI setup better than I do, can you see a way to
do
I am also in favor of disabling them but maybe keep them running and have
them as expected failure?
If ones write some code related to the corresponding tests , they might
still provide some valuable info.
Is this possible?
If not I'd still be in favor of disabling them.
Cheers
Denis
On Mon, 11
Hi all,
For a long time now we've been plagued by intermittently failing tests
on Travis, which are making the whole QGIS development experience
quite painful.
I propose that we take an absolute hard line approach from now and
disable all tests which are causing false positive failures. I've
