Trac'ing tests status

[Moritz Lenz]

Hello,

Michael Hind wrote:
> As I mentioned on #parrot, I was actually appalled, that we had a
> situation that rakudo and partcl failed to build (Segmentation fault)
> and cardinal built but aborted make test and the only indication on
> parrot was that one test failed, not even a mainstream test, but ONE of
> the many examples_tests (which are only run under make fulltest).

... which is why a policy as we're trying to establish it now is a good
idea.

> 2009/8/26 Will Coleda <will at coleda.com <mailto:will at coleda.com>>
> 
>     We should be following rakudo's example of not closing tickets for
>     which tests could be written.
> 
>     We could abuse the existing trac fields we have to help track this
>     status, or we could add a new "Tests" field, with "needs, has, can't,
>     <null>"
> 
>     Moritz has suggested we should additionally track the name of the
>     test file.

Note that this doesn't have to be in a special as meta data.
It's useful to have the status as a new field to make it easy to search
for tickets that needs tests, for example; but presumably nobody wants
to write queries which work on particular test file names.

>     Throwing to the list for discussion; I'll get OSU to update our trac
>     instance if it turns out we decide we need new field(s) for this.

Cheers,
Moritz