Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite
Didn’t we agree to remove the T?
Where is the 5 char restriction coming from?
<testing-wg@...> on behalf of Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>
Summary all comments: I propose below type definitions:
Basic rules is:
1. 5 chars for each type
2. clear definition
3. test specific token
From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Maksim Masalski via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020年5月25日 20:47
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite
Caution: EXT Email
Today we should agree on how test types will be defined. To my mind each test type definition should have only 1 robust definition. It is better to avoid "or", "some" words in the definition, because it will make unclear during testing why that test type happened. Will mark my comments using cursive font
a) PASS - test was successful Agree
b) FAIL - test assertion(s) failed Agree
ERROR – is usually reported when test setup fails before the test even attempts to test the test assertions or(!) some other error occurred during the execution.
I think necessary to split that. Make ERR1 and ERR_DARK
d) NOT_EXECUTED (reason in msg) - Test was skipped due to some conditions at the specification stage (e.g. was on a filtered list). This would indicate that the behavior (not executing) was expected Agree, only if reason will be in msg. Why to make it shorter? NOT_EXEC
e) IGNORED – Test was skipped due to being marked manually by a user. E.g. faulty tests could get such flag before they are repaired and be skipped during the execution. Why to make it shorter? IGNORE
f) MISSING – test was in the specification marked as to be executed, although it was not found in the report. It will work only if we decide to take an approach where after tests execution the program runs through the list of tests in the specification (extracted in advance) and looks for the results in the results report. Why to make it shorter? MISS