On Friday 2014-11-21 12:51 +0100, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > Well, for one thing, it's not self-documenting.
We should comment them better (i.e., have a bug on each one, and point to the bug in a comment on the expectAssertions line). I wasn't able to do that when initially landing the assertion checking because, at the time, there were too many to keep up with the tree. At this point I could probably go back through the data I used for that to annotate the remaining ones. > For the other, unless > I'm missing something, we won't notice if an assertion is fixed and > replaced with another one. Fixed and replaced with another one should be pretty rare. (We're also aiming for 0 assertions; we're just not quite there yet.) (Less than one percent of mochitest-plain files are annotated as expecting known assertions. So we have full assertion checking test coverage on the other 99.3%.) > And yes, catching when an assertion is fixed would clearly be useful, too. We do that in most cases (we report an unexpected pass, which turns the tree orange). We just don't when an assertion is marked as intermittent, i.e., when a test has a range of assertions rather than a fixed number. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
