[Mono-dev] [Fwd:[Mono-patches] r56597- trunk/mcs/class/System.XML/Test/System.Xml.Schema]

[Atsushi Eno]

Hi,

>>>> There is a reason I marked it as NotWorking - it is for
>>>> compatibility kids. 
>>> Why mark something "NotWorking" if it is indeed working ?
>> Umm, you are right on the different aspect. It should be
>> indeed [Ignore] since the test itself is wrong, as well as
>> our code is not correct (in compatibility aspect).
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. The test passes on both Mono (1.0 and 2.0
> profile), and MS.NET 1.x after my minor change, then why not just mark the
> test NotDotNet on the 2.0 profile. That will at least ensure the Mono
> implementation keeps matching the MS.NET 1.1 implementation.

Well, from what you wrote in the ChangeLog, the test context change 
looked just a "mistake", especially since there is no reason to
determine .NET 2.0 as buggy.

>> OK, your change on #4 was wrong: it changes AssertNull() to 
>> Assert.Is*Not*Null() which obviously changes test semantics.
> 
> Yes, but that change allows us to enable the test on Mono (1.0 and 2.0
> profile) and MS.NET 1.x, which is far more useful than a test that is never
> executed (because its marked NotWorking or Ignore).

Yes, I understand that your changed is based on that idea, but I don't
think that having tests that are based on uncertainty is a good idea.
That's why I marked it as [Ignore], neither [NotDotNet] nor
[NotWorking].

>> I'll revert the change and remark it as Ignore. No need to waste
>> extra time.
> 
> I really don't want to waste time for either of us, just want to avoid these
> discussions in the future by making sure I understand you.

OK, I just thought we spent words enough on it, but it does seems so ;-)
Sorry it's not kind of your fault.

> PS. Have you looked at my other small XmlSchema patch (bug #77491) ? Also
> you attached patches for bugs #66031 and #75831, and change they will be
> committed soon ?

Hmm, there is no such one (#77491), and I haven't created any
patches for #75831 (maybe you put a different number? it seems
already fixed in svn). For mcs patch (#66031), maybe Harinath
would take care of mcs fix.

Atsushi Eno