In Scala, the test frameworks allow you to include a "pendingUntilFixed" annotation [1]. IMHO this is a really good way to check-in tests that are still pending.
Not sure how to mimic this behaviour with plain junit though :( [1] https://etorreborre.github.io/specs2/guide/SPECS2-3.5/org.specs2.guide.PendingUntilFixedExamples.html Alberto Rodriguez Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>* 2015-11-29 11:53 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Guziałek <tom...@guzialek.info>: > I personally don't like working with diffs. But will try to make friends > with them, sounds like a reasonable idea to use them for bug reproducing > purposes. > > Pozdrawiam / Regards / Med venlig hilsen > Tomasz Guziałek > > 2015-11-29 9:30 GMT+01:00 Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com > >: > > > I think that also sounds like a good idea. Agree that rarely the branch > is > > needed. > > > > 2015-11-28 13:09 GMT+01:00 Du Krøger, Dennis < > > dennis.dukro...@humaninference.com>: > > > > > Hmmm... How about just attaching it as a diff to the related issue > > > description? > > > > > > Since there is no actual functionality, "only" a demonstration of a > > > problem, I'm not sure a branch is the best place to keep these. > > > > > > /Dennis > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 10:42 > > > To: dev@metamodel.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Checking-in "red" unit tests reproducing bugs. > > > > > > Good discussion point Tomasz. From my point of view, it is very nice to > > > reproduce a bug with a unittest. If it is trivial I usually simply > inline > > > the unittest in the JIRA issue in a {code} block. But for committers > it's > > > certainly also possible that we create branches on the central/shared > > repo. > > > I agree that creating such a branch on a fork is a bit messy in the > long > > > run. Regardless how it's done - I think demonstrating a bug with a > > failing > > > unittest is a great practice and we should encourage that a lot. I > would > > be > > > happy to agree on making it standard practice to make remote branches > on > > > the MM central git repo to represent such bug tests. Maybe we should > just > > > always prefix such branch names with "bug/..." or something like that. > > > > > > 2015-11-28 10:31 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Guziałek <tomaszguzia...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > I would like to discuss with you what would be the preferred way to > > > > checking-in code that is a unit test reproducing an issue, but not > > fixing > > > > it. > > > > > > > > I created branches in my own fork of MetaModel with failing unit > tests > > > for > > > > several tickets. Currently only one of them is still open and no fix > is > > > on > > > > the way: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METAMODEL-167 > > > > > > > > Such branches should not be merged into master as the build will > fail, > > > but > > > > they are a valuable documentation of the issues. As mentioned, the > > > branches > > > > live only in a fork, but maybe we should consider checking-in them > into > > > the > > > > main repo? > > > > > > > > I am starting the discussion right now, because I would like to nuke > my > > > own > > > > fork soon. I made some commits on my fork's master branch by mistake > > and > > > it > > > > keeps polluting subsequent branches I create. I know that is probably > > > > killing the fly with a bazooka, but it will save me much time > carefully > > > > fixing the mess. > > > > > > > > I would love to hear your suggestions regarding the process how we > deal > > > > with "red" branches in MetaModel - no doubt that the situatio of > > > > reproducing bugs with unit tests will come up again in the nearest > > > future. > > > > > > > > > >
