I would be interested in maintaining the test suite. I've just joined the contributor liaison team but I'm definitely not an Emacs Lisp rookie. I also know ert very well as I've spent the past year working on a property-based testing project that wraps ert.
Le lun. 18 mai 2026 à 17:41, Bastien Guerry <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi Sławomir and Morgan, > > Thanks for this interesting discussion. > > Sławomir Grochowski <[email protected]> writes: > > > I do see the tension with what Ihor wrote in that thread, and with the > > paragraph he added to testing/README in e1ef98202: tests in Org are > > sometimes the only reference for how the code *should* behave, so a > > passing assertion of awkward behavior can be misread as "this oddity is > > intentional". That is a fair worry. Where I would push back gently is > > that the worry is about how the test *reads*, not about whether the > > knowledge it captures is worth having -- and reading can be fixed with a > > comment or docstring ("this pins current behavior that surprised the > > author; see <thread>; the desired behavior is X"), in a way that > > ":expected-result :failed" cannot, because :failed silently drops out of > > a green run and gives the next reader nothing to grab onto. > > Tests either succeed or fail based on the expected behaviour. > > I can see how characterisation "tests" could be useful for mapping the > existing behaviours, but I find it confusing to call them "tests". I'd > call them "records" because they just record a behavior. > > Adding characterisation records that describe the current behaviour > would probably create a maintenance burden because you would end up > maintaining code that is not so useful: failed characterisation "tests" > do not indicate what needs to be fixed (the behaviour or the test). > > I'm not saying it's completely useless, I see your point, but the > usefulness-to-maintenance ratio seems too low to me. So I agree with the > approach from testing/README: "The tests are usually designed aiming to > ensure the *expected* Org mode behavior." > > Also, we had a test suite that we used to run every few hours against > main/maint, and we stopped it because it is unmaintained - if someone > wants to maintain this, we can set it up again. > > -- > Bastien >
