Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-10-09 05:35:39) > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 19:13, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: > > > > In other cases like this we return skip instead of warn. > Can you be more specific about those "other cases like these"? It's > the core part of your argument so w/o a quote/reference it's > impossible to make a decision.
For example, if a test binary doesn't exist or isn't executable. > > I think that it should > > be skip because: > > > > 1) warn doesn't have any real meaning > Not a usual black-and-white one, but it does. > WARN is something that should be addressed (looked at), but isn't > considered an blocking issue. Piglit's warn is a bad particularly because it doesn't have a concise meaning, it means "something might have happened". Tests results should not be ambiguous like that. pass, fail, crash, and skip all have clear concise meanings. > > 2) we couldn't actually run the test so there isn't a result > > > There is no clear "one test" here, but a collection of small subtests > - more or less one for each piglit_report_result. > You don't want to skip the whole thing, because a section is no applicable. In that case, I think a more correct solution would be to use piglit_report_subtest_result in the test so that each subtest returns an individual result. Dylan
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
