> It's technically possible to use @flaky for that, but in practice it's used to re-run the test multiple times and reports a pass if any of the runs pass
This is useful and fine. Someone wrote a test and it now hits a race condition or something and occasionally fails. Let’s assume we are very confident it is problem with the test not the product.
Choices:
Spend a sprint trying to fix it right now regardless of priority.
Turn it off and lose that coverage.
Buy some time.
In this context it makes sense. As long as their is a procedure to address these in some sane timeframe.
Maybe that is an example of
normalization of deviance. But I think if it is discusses and trade offs thought through it is an OK thing to do at times. Remember most development is not green field. You inherit a system when you start a job.
This is useful and fine. Someone wrote a test and it now hits a race condition or something and occasionally fails. Let’s assume we are very confident it is problem with the test not the product.
Choices:
Spend a sprint trying to fix it right now regardless of priority.
Turn it off and lose that coverage.
Buy some time.
In this context it makes sense. As long as their is a procedure to address these in some sane timeframe.
Maybe that is an example of normalization of deviance. But I think if it is discusses and trade offs thought through it is an OK thing to do at times. Remember most development is not green field. You inherit a system when you start a job.