|
From: | Darshit Shah |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Change testenv/Test-auth-both.py from XFAIL to a normal test |
Date: | Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:24:18 +0530 |
User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On 11/22, Tim Rühsen wrote:
XFAIL is like a TODO list for things we already consider broken. The idea is, when you know that a certain feature is broken or not implemented, you can mark its test as XFAIL. This way, you can simply rely on the exit status of the test suite for regression testing of other features.Am Freitag, 21. November 2014, 21:13:45 schrieb Darshit Shah:Thanking You, Darshit Shah Sent from mobile device. Please excuse my brevity On 21-Nov-2014 8:45 pm, "Tim Ruehsen" <address@hidden> wrote: > I had two issues with the above mentioned test. > > 1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had some confusion on the mailing list. Xfail is standard parlance for expected failures. This is also documented in the readme file. Xfail is not something we introduced but is available in autotools as a standard feature. > 2. XFAIL is true for a test even if it fails out of *any* reason. > Example: When testing on a virtual machine without python3, 'make check' still > happily reports XFAIL: 1 instead of report failure of all tests. This specific issue should be handled in the configure file. I'll try and hack it together tomorrow. I'm against this patch, since currently make check reports exactly as it should. The test is expected to fail. I do not know of any scenario where this particular test will fail for unexpected reasons. What you describe occurs when all tests fail. Let's keep the expected failures since it is a reminder of features that we currently lack.Darshit, that is something different I wasn't aware of. You say XFAIL is like a TODO list... well ok.
Maybe we should. When I wrote this test suite and the particular test, we weren't really using the Savannah bug tracker. Those bugs used to lie dormant with very little changes. So I didn't bother creating a Feature Request there.In this case there should be a (wishlist) bug and it should be referred to within the test source code. Maybe you can add a description to make clear what is going on and what is missing in Wget. With that information i could go and implement it.
Another reason why I never got around to implementing this feature is that it is required by almost no one. The issue at hand is that when a Server responds with two possible authentication methods, the client is expected to choose the strongest one it knows. Instead Wget chooses the first one it knows. This violates the RFC and hence I marked it up as a bug. I'll probably add all this information into the test file in a while and push it.
Tim
--- end quoted text --- -- Thanking You, Darshit Shah
pgpXwH7mTJnnv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |