Well, yes. Actually, this happened to me the first time I ran gt... I had a couple different intermittent failures, which were then helpfully cached. :/ You can always force a re-run with gt -f to get out of this situation, but it's far better to just make our tests deterministic.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:15 AM Martin Packman < martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 15/06/2015, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Russ Cox has an experimental command called gt, which replaces the go > test > > tool, and caches test output when you run it. The next time you run gt, > if > > none of the files in a package have changed and none of the files of > > packages it depends on have changed, then gt will just reprint the cached > > output. > > Shame that the code not having changed isn't a good indicator of > whether a passing test will fail next run with juju: > > <https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bugs?field.tag=intermittent-failure > > > > 1 → 75 of 108 results... > > Martin > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
