#46845 [Asn->Csd]: Test expected to fail, but pass, dont cause an error
| From: | zoe@php.net | Date: | Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:42:04 +0000 |
| Subject: | #46845 [Asn->Csd]: Test expected to fail, but pass, dont cause an error | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.bugs |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-bugs+get-132458@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
ID: 46845
Updated by: zoe@php.net
Reported By: hannes dot magnusson at gmail dot com
-Status: Assigned
+Status: Closed
Bug Type: *General Issues
Operating System: Linux
PHP Version: 5.3.0alpha3
Assigned To: zoe
New Comment:
Done. When I looked a couple of weeks ago I didn't find any XFAIL tests
that were passing (maybe you had just fixed them up?). Having just fixed
this I found 7 in PHP53 so I guess that demonstrates that the fix was
necessary.
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2008-12-31 11:14:19] hannes dot magnusson at gmail dot com
WARN.
I think WARN tests have their own "printout section" so it sounds good
to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2008-12-31 10:03:21] zoe@php.net
This discussion did come up when we added the XFAIL option and iirc we
decided to go with the current behaviour. That said, I'm happy to change
it if we can find a better solution.
Currently, as you say, we have the risk that someone could change PHP,
the test could start passing, the developer forgets to remove the XFAIL
section and then some time later the test starts to really fail but
because there is an XFAIL section the failure is ignored.
I have checked through all the tests in PHP53 and found no passing test
with an XFAIL section, so this hasn't been a problem yet.
One solution might be to make tests always FAIL until the XFAIL section
is removed. This might be annoying and confusing if you were trying to
fix a bug. However it would ensure that the developer remembered to
remove the XFAIL section.
Another would be to introduce another state "XFAILPASS"? for tests
which have an XFAIL section but actually pass? Or maybe "WARN"? Do you
have a preference for any of these?
On balance my view is still that it's a small enough risk that this
isn't worth another hack in an already much-hacked script, on the other
hand if there is a clear 'right' answer I will fix it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2008-12-12 12:20:44] hannes dot magnusson at gmail dot com
Description:
------------
When test using XFAIL start "working" (i.e. don't fail) run-tests.php
doesn't mark them in any special manners.
This means that when the fix breaks the test goes back into the
"Expected fail" category without anyone ever noticing that something
broke.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=46845&edit=1