On 06/05/2024 10.01, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:25:37AM GMT, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 04/05/2024 14.28, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
There are times we would like to test a function that is known to fail
in some conditions due to a bug in implementation (QEMU, KVM, or even
hardware). It would be nice to count these as known failures and not
report a summary failure.
xfail is not the same thing, xfail means failure is required and a pass
causes the test to fail. So add kfail for known failures.
Actually, I wonder whether that's not rather a bug in report_xfail()
instead. Currently, when you call report_xfail(true, ...), the result is
*always* counted as a failure, either as an expected failure (if the test
really failed), or as a normal failure (if the test succeeded). What's the
point of counting a successful test as a failure??
Andrew, you've originally introduced report_xfail in commit a5af7b8a67e,
could you please comment on this?
An expected failure passes when the test fails and fails when the test
passes, i.e.
XFAIL == PASS (but separately accounted with 'xfailures')
XPASS == FAIL
If we expect something to fail and it passes then this may be due to the
thing being fixed, so we should change the test to expect success, or
due to the test being written incorrectly for our expectations. Either
way, when an expected failure doesn't fail, it means our expectations are
wrong and we need to be alerted to that, hence a FAIL is reported.
Ok, so this was on purpose, indeed. Maybe we should add this information in
a comment right in front of the function, so that others don't scratch their
head, too?
Anyway, this patch here is fine then:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
