If the implementation of automated testing is broken why not fix it or work around the issues rather than abandon the whole idea? Isn't it useful to have all non-interactive tests run automatically on dozens of machines? If it isn't useful then I agree, we should stop the automated testing.
Chris On Tuesday 07 December 2004 5:25 am, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Do you agree, should we stop using winrash? > > > > "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "Jakob Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Well, I tried now marking the service as interactive, > >>> but that didn't make any difference. > >>> > >>> So, what follows, deprecate Winrash? > >> > >> If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes. > > I think it does provide much useful information which would > be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing. What's > more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask > for a tag but relies on a command line option which people > would tend to forget. What I propose: make winetest detect > whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and > include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine. > Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or > mark the different reports on the webpage for easier > reference. That would bring us the best of both worlds. > > Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?) > to make clear in the output that they were not run for this > reason... That would probably require a new field in the > final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar). > This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that > they aren't forgotten about... > > That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so > I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in. The rest > should not be hard, I hope I'll find the time for them if we > decide to go this way.
