knownfail or skip for flakey tests?

Michael Adam obnox at
Fri Dec 9 04:54:53 MST 2011

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Am 14/10/11 08:14, schrieb Stefan (metze) Metzmacher:
> >I think we should try to fix that and add an additional
> >handling for flakey tests. We could then maintain
> >flakey-failures and flakey-errors files and also ignore errors
> >if needed instead of only failures.
> This has now been fixed in master. Tests listed in selftest/knownfail 
> that actually succeed will now once again trigger a uxsuccess 
> (unexpected success), which is considered an error.
> I've moved those tests in knownfail that had a comment saying they were 
> flapping to selftest/flapping. Several tests could also be removed from 
> knownfail because they are no longer failing (ie because remote calls 
> have been implemented, or bugs fixed). If you run into any more tests 
> that are flapping, please add them there as well.


Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list