Am Samstag, 3. August 2013 um 17:05:48, schrieb Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn <v...@lyx.org> wrote: > > > > Op 3 aug. 2013 21:56 schreef "Scott Kostyshak" <skost...@lyx.org> het > > volgende: > > > > > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org> wrote: > >> > Am Samstag, 3. August 2013 um 12:33:56, schrieb Kornel Benko > >> > <kor...@lyx.org> > >> >> Here the possible patch: > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> The file "revertedTests" should contain the testnames, no blanks, each > >> >> testname in a separate line. > >> > > >> >> (E.g. > >> > > >> >> export/doc/Math_pdf > >> > > >> >> export/doc/he/Tutorial_pdf5 > >> > > >> >> ... > >> > > >> >> ) > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Kornel > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Sorry, this one is better. > >> > >> I like this. > >> > >> Note that the inverted test becomes: > >> INVERTED-TEST_FAILURE-IS-GOOD_export/doc/attic/DocStyle_pdf > >> instead of what we had mentioned above: > >> export/doc/attic/INVERTED-TEST_FAILURE-IS-GOOD_DocStyle_pdf > >> > >> I slightly prefer the new name (how it is with your patch) because you > >> can run both tests (even though there will be only one) by using the > >> original name.
Yes, that was one intention. The real reason was, it was easier to implement :) > >> I don't agree with the name "revertedTests" (and likewise the variable > >> names). Using as a reverence > >> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revert > >> I think that you are intending to use it with the following meaning: > >> "(transitive, now rare) To turn back, or turn to the contrary; to > >> reverse." Yes. > >> As noted, this definition is rare. > >> I think most people running the tests will think of git (in fact, git > >> is mentioned on the wiktionary page) or of this definition: > >> "To cause to return to a former condition." > >> > >> Do you prefer "revert" to "invert"? Of course, if this meaning is rare, I will not prefer it anymore. What I meant was: Show that the named tests are not correct in some way, but that we hope they will be OK some day. In (my) other words: reverted for now. For me "invertedTests" looks more like we intend let them be forever. But I am not hanging on 'revert'. I knew, *this* will be the hard part. > >> Everything else looks good to me. > >> > > > > Having tests that are known to fail is quite normal in a test suite. Why do > > we have to mangle these tests with those ugly verbose lengthy names? > > "Failure is good" makes not much sense. Failure is bad, but sometimes it is > > expected. I wouldn't mark them as good. > > It is meant to be interpreted as "if this test fails, then this is > good". My hope was that this would be a signal to the user that it is > not a problem that the test is failing. The name is supposed to be > ugly and stand out. If suddenly LyX has LuaTeX support for Russion (or > if suddenly TeX Live automatically supports it), we will be notified > of this as soon as we run the tests. If that happens, we just have to > remove the lines with "/ru/*pdf5" in the file revertedTests. And then > we can proceed to act on the event that we were notified of (e.g. put > in the release notes that LyX now supports LuaTeX for Russian). +1 > In summary, you will not often see these ugly names and if you do, > they are supposed to be ugly and bother you so that you act on them. > > In my opinion, it is important to have the ctest failures as clean as > possible. This way, when you see a failure, you know that something > has changed and you should look into this. > > > Doesn't ctest have the option to add known failures ? > > I've looked in the past and not found anything. I too didn't find. + it is easier to alter the the control file. > Scott Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
