More failing tests...

[Ian Booth]

> 
> If you see a failure and believe it's intermittent, please run it again
> until you're sure it is, and make sure there's a bug for it. In this
> instance there were 9 reliably failing tests in worker/uniter, and I'm
> not sure how one would mistake one for the other. You *are* merging
> trunk into your branch before you run the tests and propose/submit,
> right?
>

I do normally but may have not have done so in this case. This is the first
project I have worked on in years without a bot of some sort guarding trunk
commits so sometimes my muscle memory reverts to old habits in relying on the
bot to catch issues after local test runs. Despite best intentions, we will make
mistakes, plus it is crackful to expect our individual setups to be anyway a
reliable way to ensure passing tests = quality. The final tests before trunk
commit need to be done on a controlled environment. We gotta get tarmac set up.

> If you're lucky enough to be able to reproduce an intermittent failure
> at a decent rate, please step up and try to actually fix it: we all have
> subtle differences in hardware/OS, and if you're suffering excessively
> from one particular failure you're probably the best person to deal with
> it. If the issue is unclear, ofc, please seek guidance from the most
> likely responsible individual.
> 

Sadly they have been intermittent rather than regular. Where test failures do
become more regular (like the Goose test double server id issue), we do fix them.