[merge] doc how to use new test features

[Martin Pool]

On 5/2/07, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
> > silently return - this test just doesn't make sense in this case
>
> I don't like silent returns at all.  The test should not report that it
> passed unless it ran to completion.

Yes, that was my point in my later post -- and that this is commonly
how TestSkipped is currently used.  I don't mind if we have a
different status meaning "test not implemented" or "test prerequisite
not implemented yet."

> > This raises the question of when it's acceptable to have tests in any
> > of these cases.  Will we merge code with known failures?
>
> I think that has to be case-by-case.  We would certainly merge a test
> case that failed for already-present code.  Otherwise, it's a tradeoff
> based on the utility of the code vs the importance of the failure vs the
> difficulty in fixing the code.

Right.  Maybe we should just disclose it in reviews - "this adds one
more known failure for bug #123".

-- 
Martin