[rfc] [icedtea-web] blacklist for reproducers
omajid at redhat.com
Sun Apr 8 15:56:52 PDT 2012
On 04/06/2012 08:56 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> This is second from total of 5 patches which are introducing Tets For
> Thus particular one is introducing blacklist. The test-engine is
> delivered to class-path together with all reproducers' testcases. If the
> file form engine is interface, have no @Test methods or does not meet
> constructor requirements, then the file fails, and this is making our
> statistics misleading.
> Also I'm expecting growing of engine (now I'm planing @bug and @browser
> annotations and some more logic around. See content of ignore-list after
> all this changes. Also I would like to refactor ServerAccess class
> little bit in long term (as it have grown littlebit and have to much
> inner classes right now) future...
> Probably cleaner solution will be to separate testengine from testaces
> more then it is now, but I have tried this refactoring and I was getting
> deeper and deeper and it was bringing more and more issues. From this
> I'm really for blacklist rather then for refactoring.
> Also one more benefit is here - you can easili blacklist all reproducers
> except one or two fro make ;)
I feel rather uncomfortable with this. I really think the underlying
problem should be fixed instead. Using band-aids like this works in the
short-term but makes icedtea-web worse in the long term.
If there is some effort required to fix the test-engine, lets do that.
If the tests are wrong, lets remove them. If it makes sense to run only
a few tests, adding that would be pretty nice (like how jtreg does it by
allowing a user to specify a directory to find tests in) but a blacklist
looks really fishy.
More information about the distro-pkg-dev