Re: 1.7.2 cycle will open soon
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- May 6, 2010, 07:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100506074943.GA24399@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <4BE26A83.4010708@viscovery.net>
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 09:06:43AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Am 5/6/2010 8:44, schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
> > test_when_finished () {
> > test_cleanup="$* && $test_cleanup"
> > }
>
> I'm wondering why you want this test_cleanup at all?
>
> Is it so that subsequent tests can succeed even if an earlier test failed
> before its regular cleanup?
>
> I don't see what this buys you. If a test case uncovers a regression, you
> got to fix it - who cares how many later tests fail or not? Once you are
> finished with your change, all tests will pass anyway (including their
> regular cleanups).I have to agree. Yes, using test_when_finished can make _some_ tests more robust, but there will still be many tests whose breakage will break future tests. And many of those will never be fixed, because the tests simply build on one another.
So I don't think we will ever "solve" this problem, which means testers will continue to have to fix early failures before looking at later ones, because they don't know if the later test is a false negative or not. And as you point out, it is simply not that big a deal in the first place.
-Peff