So far no one has responded to Brion's comments about how parserTests should be
modified. You are the customers. What do you want?
Should I just modify parserTests.txt to disable those tests that always have
failed? Should I do that and add an option to run disabled tests?
Or should I retain the known-to-fail status? If so, should I retain the option
that known-to-fail results accumulate as fails? If so, what should the option
be called? Right now it is --ktf-to-fail. There is one proposal to change it to
--with-known-to-fail. Any others? Which do people prefer?
Should we note anything new in the testrun and testitem tables? Specifically,
should we add a column to testrun that records whether --ktf-to-fail (or
whatever we call it) or --run-disabled was set (obviously the table would be
modified only to note one of these depending on which implementation option
people choose). If we go with the known-to-fail status, should we add a column
to testitem that indicates that a test returned a known-to-fail status? Should
we leave these tables alone?
I do not have enough experience to determine which of these are the best
options. You do, so you need to choose. [Of course, you can remain silent,
which I will interpret to mean you really don't care]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
