Boost Testing :
From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-03 10:06:16
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue Jul 03 2007, Martin Wille 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.
I guess we have another problem then: we don't have a markup for this
specific kind of failure. If we mark that test as known-failing then
we'll often see a dark green field signalling "passing unexpectedly",
which would also give a wrong impression.
I think we need a new tag for this.