On Fri Oct 31, 2025 at 12:48 PM UTC, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > Hi Brendan, > > Oct 14, 2025 16:45:32 Brendan Jackman <[email protected]>: > > (...) > >> In case any user depends on the current behaviour, such as running this >> from a script with `set -e` and parsing the result for failures >> afterwards, add a flag they can set to get the old behaviour, namely >> --no-error-on-fail. > > IMO this new flag is also unnecessary. > The user can just do "|| true" when needed. >
`|| true` is not the same thing, if you do that then you completely hide all failures of the script. With --no-error-on-fail you just skip the specific case of tests failing. I did say somewhere in a previous thread that this distinction (test failure vs test harness failure) is always gonna be a bit sketchy for this script since it's running on the kernel under test. But that doesn't mean we should give up on it completely completely.
