Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

[Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com>]

On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we
> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test
> suite that gives zero signal on whether I should add the stable
> keyword? Even a one-line hin in the stabilization request would
> be nice. As it is, I keep a list of known-to-fail packages and my
> testing machinery tells me to not bother with FEATURES=test in
> those case.


IMO: Tests that are "expected to fail" should be killed.

You should either use RESTRICT=test to veto tests entirely ( which I
don't favour ), or more carefully
filter how the test suites get executed.

Tests that fail for non-reasons and are left in that state serve a
disservice to any package that has them, because it encourages people
to not run tests, and that encourages them not to see failures when
the tests identify *real* issues.

There's really no point in a test suite if "Failure is OK" is the
standard you're targeting.

-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL