Attila Szegedi wrote: > I think half of your idea is good: half of the idea? Already better than nothing ;-)
> we should run the tests not on the > skip list, and expect them to fail. That'll force us to remove them from > the skip list as they become applicable (we're catching up with JS > 1.7/1.8 features, so those tests are expected to fail less and less). I > don't think we should be switching to an explicit list of tests to run; > as long as we adopt the idea of running the tests on the skip list with > expectation to fail. Then it doesn't matter which list do we maintain, > and the skip list is definitely smaller... normally I would prefer the solution with the list of tests that fail as well as it makes more visible the improvements that need to be made. Here it will lead to more failed builds (assuming the build gets fixed) and if no progress is made in keeping this list really up to date, it would be less informative for contributors as they couldn't easily see that the build fails due to outdated skip list. Nevertheless the most important part of my proposition is the one you agree. Do you want to work on it or should I do it? Cheers, Marc. -- Web: http://www.efficient-webtesting.com Blog: http://mguillem.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
