On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> [ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/xfail-status ]
>
> Paul Burba wrote on Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 21:53:34 -0500:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> One of the roadmap items yet to be started was a 'test review' to
>> 'Determine which XFail and WIP tests should remain so, and which need
>> to be fixed before release.'
>>
>> I took a look at this today.
>
> And looks like you did a thorough job at that; thanks!
>
>> Keep in mind this is just a guess, if your name is there you aren't
>> compelled to do anything...though I suspect we'd all agree it's bad
>> form to create an XFailing test with no associated issue when we
>> aren't planning on fixing the underlying problem.
>>
>
> Sometimes I commit an XFail test that I have no immediate intention to
> work on myself; for example, just last week I committed two XFail tests
> which arrived as patch submissions. There are other legitimate reasons
> for adding XFail tests without immediatley working on a fix, I believe.
Hi Daniel,
Adding a test you have no plans to work on is definitely *not* a
problem. The problem is adding a test you have no plans to work on
when that test has *no* associated issue. When we do the latter we
are now tracking bugs[1] in two places: The issue tracker and the
XFailing tests.
What I am advocating for is that each XFailing test have an associated
issue. This ensure that the issue tracker is the definitive answer on
what our open issues are and what is blocking a release.
Look no further than this thread for why this is important. Getting a
list of release blocking issues should be simple. It should not
require a manual analysis of the XFailing tests.
[1] I'm using the term 'bug' generically, it might be a planned
enhancement or new feature.
>> If you have some time please look through the list. If a test you
>> wrote needs an issue please write one up. If there is an existing
>> issue that should be associated with a test add it. If an associated
>> issue is unscheduled or never scheduled and you're familiar with it,
>> please take a stab at some issue triage.
>
>> LISTING: depth_tests.py
>>
>> Test # Mode Test Description
>> ------ ----- ----------------
>> 36 XFAIL 'info' should treat excluded item as versioned
>> Issue #: None
>> Target Milestone: N/A
>> Thread: N/A
>> Log: r876772
>> Point Person: danielsh
>
> Old bug. May not have an issue associated with it. I'll have a look,
> but it shouldn't block 1.7.0.
Ok, thanks. If it doesn't have an issue please add one or at least
mark https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/xfail-status
with something like: "Issue #: Confirmed no associated issue" so we
know a new issue is needed.
>> LISTING: prop_tests.py
>>
>> Test # Mode Test Description
>> ------ ----- ----------------
>> 12 XFAIL set, get, and delete a revprop change
>> Issue #: 3086
>> Target Milestone: 1.8-consider
>> Thread: N/A
>> Log: N/A
>> Point Person: Unassigned
>>
>> 26 XFAIL test handling invalid svn:* property values
>> Issue #: None
>> Target Milestone: N/A
>> Thread: N/A
>> Log: r871212
>> Point Person: danielsh
>
> These two fail for the same reason --- something to do with
> pre-revprop-change hooks over ra_dav. In any case, feel free to cross
> #26 off your list; I'm sure it will be fixed as soon as #12 is.
>
Received on 2011-02-02 18:17:07 CET