Boost Testing :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-03 09:48:10
on Tue Jul 03 2007, Martin Wille <mw8329-AT-yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
>> Your audit trail is correct in that nothing has changed in
>> the code base, but the problem is that this error is spurious,
>> it happens now and then without any particular dependence on the
>> code, and will go away on the next run, even if the source
>> hasn't been touched. A link to a past manifestation of the
>> same issue:
>> So, what would be needed is simply a rerun of the offending
>> test --I don't know if you can control the regression tester
>> to that level of detail.
> I'm not convinced it is a good idea to rerun the tests until the results
> look good, if the testing site is known to work reliably (as it is the
> case for Victor's). Doing so simply hides a known issue. One could call
> that lying about the quality of the software tested.
I agree. This calls for explicit failure markup to describe our state
of (little) knowledge about the problem.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com