Agreed - this instance was definitely a proper fail report (and the author has since corrected his issue). I just wanted to make sure that there was no unknown case of FAIL reports when declared dependencies aren't met.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:15 AM, David Golden <x...@xdg.me> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Joel Maslak <jmas...@antelope.net> wrote: > >> I just received an email from a module author because one of my smokers >> failed his module - tests failed to run because of a missing dependency >> that wasn't declared. >> > > *Undeclared* dependencies are proper FAIL reports. > > Only missing *declared* dependencies should result in a report not being > sent. > > David > > -- > David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC: @xdg >
