Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> writes: > Not exactly. I'm not advocating not failing a build if tests fail > as a general rule.
> In this context, I refer specifically to flaky tests. What I call > questionable is keeping a flaky test making the build to fail when the > test fails so much that it's clearly a wrongly designed test. Oh, sure, I'm in favor of disabling flaky tests if we can't fix them. My experience is usually more that I'm leaving them on *because* I'm trying to fix them and can't reproduce locally, or I think I've fixed it (but actually haven't). Some upstream test suites also make it a little difficult to disable a single test without carrying a patch. (Hm, including mine....) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
