On 2024-03-03 17:32, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 3/3/24 00:37, Christian Kastner wrote: >> For >> example, I also often skip tests -- it's just that I do it under >> conditions that I'm happy to defend (cause isolated, reported upstream, >> etc.), but others may not be aware of that. > > There are many cases where skipping tests is ok. As you wrote, when > reported upstream, and when the thing that's broken is the test itself > (but the functionality is not broken). > > The best practice is to document somewhere in the package (in d/rules?) > why it's been disabled. I have to admit I often don't do that extra > documentation work myself though (though mostly on packages I maintain > alone, for OpenStack for example).
I agree and have no issue with this. On the contrary, I consider this proper. I do it myself all the time. I've also temporarily disabled doc builds (for some transition). But I make note of these things in d/rules (or wherever it makes sense), and/or file bugs, etc. In the case I'm talking about, this was more of just disabling large parts (or maybe it was all, I don't remember) of tests with no attempt at even looking what the problem was. I should have framed my complaints better. I don't have any issue at all with workarounds or pragmatism when they're implemented somewhat carefully and/or reasonably, like the test-skip-handling you describe above. Best, Christian
