On 2015-11-04, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 um 15:36:45, schrieb Guenter Milde > <mi...@users.sf.net>
... >> Not only, with "suspending" I also mean "The outcome is of no value for >> finding new bugs or regressions until someone solves the known bug ...". > OK. >> However, we usually know what the outcome should be if the bug is >> solved: if the expected outcome is "pass", this test should not be >> inverted. > Here we disagree. Matter of taste I suppose. For me the test fails > _now_. We don't care now (because we know what's going on etc.). > Therefore the test is to be inverted as to not catch unwanted > attention. I still do not understand the reasoning. It will not catch attention if it is suspended, that is why it should be suspended. OTOH, if a test that should pass but does not is inverted & suspended (2 actions), we need to uninvert and to unsuspend (again 2 actions) once the problem causing the failure is solved. In contrast, if the "inversion status" matches the expected test result, we can run suspended tests from time to time and "unsuspend" the tests that now give the expected output. Also, when looking at inverted tests, we do not know whether this is a "good" inversion (the test should fail) or a "bad" inversion (the test should pass but currently does not). Günter
