Am 11.06.2014 um 20:24 schrieb Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com>:
> > On 12 June 2014 05:58, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@gmail.com> wrote: > You never know whether a test fails because of failure or insufficient > capabilities. So a restricting envvar isn't worse at all. > > I think he was more saying that he'd prefer: > > set NO_NETWORK_TESTING=1 > > over > > set NETWORK_TESTING=1 I would prefer LOCALTESTS_ONLY=1 over NO_NETWORK_TESTING=1 > Where network testing should run by default and users on boxes where it > *couldnt* work ( for whatever reason ) could disable it. > > That would be more helpful on an imaginary example environment that was > sandboxed where calling network functions during 'make test' triggers a > SIGKILL or something. > > And then with that proviso agreed upon, have a module that ascertains ( using > basic testing within the test itself ) if network behaviour is conducive to > making the test pass, and if so, permit the test to run ( guarding the test > against actual network problems instead of relying on an ENV guard , and > using the ENV guard only for users who have continued issues with the > heuristic failing to fail properly ) > > 1. begin test > 2. load test networking module module > 3. is NO_NETWORK_TESTING? SKIP! > 4. can access specified resources? yes -> run tests > no -> SKIP! In that case I suggest to FAIL instead of skip. Maybe is that part of the error. Cheers -- Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com
