Thanks for all your comments.
@John, Geert:
Thanks for bringing the expectations to the point that unit tests as
such and especially on master/maint always must pass.
I also get the point that further refinement of the test results by
utilitzing the verdicts "xpass" and "xfail" is not desired.
Op donderdag 6 september 2018 00:28:41 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> I think that completing the internal framework to successfully implement
> html api code (as you have identified is incomplete) is not time well
> spent. None of the reports will generate html without headers, for
> instance.
Op woensdag 5 september 2018 23:12:31 CEST schreef Carsten Rinke:
> Why not merging a failing test? Why waiting for the code fix?
Aside from John's explanation I would add this as a reason:
Maint and master are integration branches. Our intention is to keep them in a
releasable state all the
Carsten:
Distilling this to the core, “Why will we not merge a PR with failing tests?”
Simple: If you have a test that exposes a bug, then fixing the bug is part of
the job. The branch isn’t ready to merge until it’s fixed. That’s because the
point of unit tests is to tell developers when
Hi
As an untrained hacker, I think the issue is whether these "bugs" are
really worth fixing at all.
I can imagine the history of the dark ages; and html was being refined,
and previously the reports were outputting plaintext or directly to
screen via X calls; the hackers decide to start
Hi John,
I transfer this thread to this channel because I think this is not PR
specific but more a general issue.
Let me start by saying that I do not want to "fight to get it merged".
For me it is an interesting point to exchange views upon.
It is specifically about "We're not merging
