On 1 February 2013 18:28, Andy Doan <email address hidden> wrote:
> On 02/01, Fathi Boudra wrote:
>> On 1 February 2013 06:20, Andy Doan <email address hidden> wrote:
>> > The output says:
>> > cpufreq_05.4: combine governors not supported... skip
>> >
>> > why would we mark this as passed when its not being tested? I'm not
>> > familiar with this test suite, but that seems like its doing exactly
>> > what it should be.
>>
>> it makes more sense to mark passed than failed.
>>
>> skip means ignore the test (current reason is that combine governor
>> isn't supported).
>> the test has been skipped, it's the expected behavior = passed.
>>
>> what could be the rationale to mark it failed? :)
>
> Who's suggesting to mark it failed? I'm saying we leave it skipped.
> Skipped is a valid test result, why not use it.
misread. I thought it was marked failed.
If it's marked skipped, indeed I agree and bug is invalid.
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Andy Doan <email address hidden> wrote:
> On 02/01, Fathi Boudra wrote:
>> On 1 February 2013 06:20, Andy Doan <email address hidden> wrote:
>> > The output says:
>> > cpufreq_05.4: combine governors not supported... skip
>> >
>> > why would we mark this as passed when its not being tested? I'm not
>> > familiar with this test suite, but that seems like its doing exactly
>> > what it should be.
>>
>> it makes more sense to mark passed than failed.
>>
>> skip means ignore the test (current reason is that combine governor
>> isn't supported).
>> the test has been skipped, it's the expected behavior = passed.
>>
>> what could be the rationale to mark it failed? :)
>
> Who's suggesting to mark it failed? I'm saying we leave it skipped.
> Skipped is a valid test result, why not use it.
misread. I thought it was marked failed.
If it's marked skipped, indeed I agree and bug is invalid.