On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is willing to maintain
the ipf tests, these should be removed.
I object to this. If ipf fails its tests, then the fact should be
made clear in the test reports, not hidden by disabling the tests.
Indeed.
But only the maintainer knows whether these are "real" bugs or bugs in the
tests. I don't know whether ipf tries to maintain binary or configuration
compatibility, which seems to be the root of the failures. Frankly, I am not
sure even on what is being tested (thus why all tests should be clear and/or
heavily commented).
I don't know whether the bugs are in ipf or in the tests, but
either way, removing or disabling the tests seems to me to be
counter-productive.
These are not disabled but marked as "bogus". The reports contain a message
about the supposition that the "test case is probably broken". Apparently
someone else has also reached the same conclusions, given that there was even
a specific function to mark ipf-tests as bogus.
- Jukka.
!DSPAM:4f71c92b1981504268243!