[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #60357] Failing test for `qz` with LAPACK 3.9.1

[John W. Eaton]

Update of bug #60357 (project octave):

              Item Group:        Incorrect Result => None                   
                  Status:               Confirmed => None                   

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #13:

OK, if I understand correctly, we need two test blocks because we expect a
failure on some systems but not others.  If we have just one test that is
marked as fixed, we will get a regression on the system where the test fails. 
But we've also closed the report that is listed in the expected failure test. 
So the update-bug-status script will tag that as fixed and we'll still see a
regression.

If we accept that the test fails in a specific way on some systems, do we want
to see a failure or should we instead fix the test so it "succeeds" when it
fails in the expected way?  If yes, then we can have a single test that is
tagged as fixed.  Otherwise, I'm OK with separate tests with one expected to
fail, but then the associated report should not be closed with a "Fixed"
status so that the update-bug-status script doesn't mark it as fixed in the
test suite.

In the particular case of tests marked with bug 52627, that bug is about a
bunch of different problems that were showing up as failures on Mac systems. 
We could leave that closed as Fixed and open another just for this specific
issue with mapper functions.  It could either remain open or be closed with a
"Won't Fix" status.  Either way will prevent the update-bug-status script from
marking these tests as fixed in the test suite. 

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60357>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/