Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Change testenv/Test-auth-both.py from XFAIL to a normal test

[Darshit Shah]

On 11/22, Tim Rühsen wrote:
> 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.
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.

> 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.
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.

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