[PATCH 4/6] testsuite: Add expected-fail to psim

[Chris Johns]

> On 6 May 2020, at 8:15 pm, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> 
> On 06/05/2020 12:00, Chris Johns wrote:
> 
>>> On 6/5/20 7:35 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>> On 06/05/2020 10:41, chrisj at rtems.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: Chris Johns<chrisj at rtems.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Updates #2962
>>>> ---
>>>>   bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>>   create mode 100644 bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg b/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000..b0d2a05086
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>>> +#
>>>> +# PSIM RTEMS Test Database.
>>>> +#
>>>> +# Format is one line per test that is_NOT_  built.
>>>> +#
>>>> +
>>>> +expected-fail: fsimfsgeneric01
>>>> +expected-fail: block11
>>>> +expected-fail: rbheap01
>>>> +expected-fail: termios01
>>>> +expected-fail: ttest01
>>>> +expected-fail: psx12
>>>> +expected-fail: psxchroot01
>>>> +expected-fail: psxfenv01
>>>> +expected-fail: psximfs02
>>>> +expected-fail: psxpipe01
>>>> +expected-fail: spextensions01
>>>> +expected-fail: spfatal31
>>>> +expected-fail: spfifo02
>>>> +expected-fail: spmountmgr01
>>>> +expected-fail: spprivenv01
>>>> +expected-fail: spstdthreads01
>>> 
>>> I don't think these tests are expected to fail. If they fail, then there is a bug somewhere.
>> 
>> Yes we hope no tests fail but they can and do. Excluding tests because they fail would be incorrect. In the 5.1 release these bugs are present so we expect, or maybe it should say, we know the test will fail. With this change any thing that appears in the failure column is "unexpected" and that means the user build of the release does not match the state we "expect" and it is worth investigation by the user.
>> 
>> Without these tests being tagged this way the user would have no idea where the stand after a build and test run and that would mean we would have to make sure a release has no failures. I consider that as not practical or realistic. 
> Maybe we need another state, e.g. something-is-broken-please-fix-it.

I do not think so, it is implicit in the failure or the test is broken. The only change is to add unexpected-pass, that will be on master after the 5 branch. 

Chris

Chris