tests: Make known_failure more precise
#22366
Open
+313
−197
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
moulins
added
A-tests
moulins
force-pushed
the
test-known-failure-explicit
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f5cbf1d to
061a46d
Compare
Contributor
|
Tests in It's because we expect on e.g. overflow panic message, but those don't exist in release. |
moulins
force-pushed
the
test-known-failure-explicit
branch
from
4b9b3d4 to
9f0469d
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Added a commit to skip panicky tests if debug assertions are disabled; it's a little heavy-handed, as some panicky tests hit regular assertions, but we have few enough of those that I don't think it's a big deal. |
This'll make it easier to tweak it in the future.
Tests that are expected to panic are now required to explicitely say so in their `test.toml`, by using `known_failure.panic = "expected message"`. Additionally, only panics raised during player ticking are caught, and not those happenning elsewhere (e.g. in rendering, or in test framework code).
Root-level `known_failure = true` now only except the trace output check to fail; if other checks (e.g. image comparisons) are expected to fail, they should specify their own `known_failure = true`.
moulins
force-pushed
the
test-known-failure-explicit
branch
from
9f0469d to
e3fa7b4
Compare
|
|
||
| num_frames = 1 | ||
| known_failure = true # https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/issues/12123 | ||
| known_failure = true # https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/issues/12118 |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was there a reason for this comment to change? #12118 seems to be about acid-shapes-testing
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn visit_bool<E: de::Error>(self, v: bool) -> Result<Self::Value, E> { | ||
| Ok(match v { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Could this just be an if-statement?
Lord-McSweeney
approved these changes
Dec 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
(Requires PR #22348)
Instead of treating any error or panic as a success, only "expected" failures are allowed, and the kind of check that should fail must be specified:
known_failure = true: means that the final trace output check is expected to fail;known_failure.panic = "msg": means that the test is expected to panic (like the#[should_panic = "msg"]attribute in Rust unit tests);image_comparisons.NAME.known_failure = true: means that the given image check is expected to fail.