> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:48 PM, trondd <tro...@kagu-tsuchi.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Actually, rereading what I quoted, I see you're concerned with unmasking > false positives, which can be manually rerun in isolation to reproduce. > My thought still stands for the flip-side where a test fails due to a > previous test.
I think determining a false negative *is* a false negative would require basically the same steps: * Run the test in isolation. * Did it fail? If yes, this is probably not a false negative. If not, you could have a false negative. * Try to reproduce the steps that caused it to fail the first time (you have a record, e.g., on your console, in your logs, etc.). * Can you reproduce it? If you can, you probably have a false negative. Otherwise, something else is off. Not an exact science by any means, but a start. Unless I misunderstood your question. -- Scott Cheloha