On Monday 29 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 09:09:59PM CET: > > On Monday 29 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I approve the patch but ask you to keep that coverage in, now you update > > > the patch with an unrelated new change whose applicability depends on > > > completely different factors (namely deciding whether some behavior is > > > desirable or not), > > > > > Why should its applicatibility depend on such a decision? The testcase > > just serves to expose the current behaviour explicitly, without telling > > if it's desirable or not. > > IMVHO an entry in the bug tracker is more applicable for issues that may > be valid or invalid. > You're right that an xfailing testcase without an associated PR might be mostly useless (so yes, my bad in this case too, for proposing a new xfailing test without opening an associated PR first). Notice that, IMHO, the best thing to do is to get both a PR and a testcase, e.g. as follows: - open a new PR in the bug tracker; - add xfailing testcase(s), which can now point to an archived PR (thus rendering the test much more useful, and its purpose more clear); - maybe update the PR to refer to the xfailing testcase(s).
> A commit adding a test that is later removed > because it's invalid is not so easily searched for a couple of years > later. Closed PRs on the other hand are straightforward to search. > This is a very good point in favor of the opening of a PR in the bug tracker, but IMO it's not a reason not to have *also* an xfailing testcase. Regards, Stefano
