Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 um 19:27:06, schrieb Guenter Milde <mi...@users.sf.net> > On 2015-11-04, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 um 15:36:45, schrieb Guenter Milde > > <mi...@users.sf.net> > > ... > > >> Not only, with "suspending" I also mean "The outcome is of no value for > >> finding new bugs or regressions until someone solves the known bug ...". > > > OK. > > >> However, we usually know what the outcome should be if the bug is > >> solved: if the expected outcome is "pass", this test should not be > >> inverted. > > > Here we disagree. Matter of taste I suppose. For me the test fails > > _now_. We don't care now (because we know what's going on etc.). > > Therefore the test is to be inverted as to not catch unwanted > > attention. > > I still do not understand the reasoning. It will not catch attention if > it is suspended, that is why it should be suspended.
It is suspended _only_ if you select testcases with the '-L' parameter.
> OTOH, if a test that should pass but does not is inverted & suspended (2
> actions), we need to uninvert and to unsuspend (again 2 actions) once the
> problem causing the failure is solved.
No, we need only uninvert. 'Suspend' has no effect or non-inverted tests.
> In contrast, if the "inversion status" matches the expected test result, we
> can run suspended tests from time to time and "unsuspend" the tests that now
> give the expected output.
No, only uninvert.
> Also, when looking at inverted tests, we do not know whether this is a
> "good" inversion (the test should fail) or a "bad" inversion (the test
> should pass but currently does not).
>
Sure, but look into suspendedTests, there is only 1 regex (for now, I know)
selecting
from the inverted tests.
> Günter
>
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
