Previously, only the first B?XFAIL would be reported, all others would
be discarded. Furthermore, if a B?XFAIL had happened, B?PASS was also
not reported, since the B?XFAIL served as test line. However, if the
B?XFAIL was followed by a SKIP, B?XPASS or B?FAIL, these were reported
as normal, producing exactly the kind of duplicated test line that the
skipping of B?PASS was meant to supply.
So change B?XFAIL to be reported among the messages, but retain the
TODO annotation of the first on the test line of a subsequent B?PASS,
if nothing more drastic happens in the mean time. So now more than one
B?XFAIL can be reported, the test is still marked as a TODO and we
don't get duplicate test lines for a subsequent non-passing result.
This replaces the bool m_wasExpectedFail member with a QTestCharBuffer
m_firstExpectedFail that records the first XFAIL's TODO line (so its
isEmpty() fully replaces m_wasExpectedFail).
Previously, the at/file/line information for a B?XFail would be
supplied as top-level keys in the YAML block for a "Pass" reported as
not ok due to the XFail, as this location information is now part of
the B?XFail's message in the extensions/messages block. Duplicating
the first B?XFail's location at top level would add complexity and is
arguably misleading, as the test result is really a pass (after
ignoring known issues), and the location of the pass is indeterminate
(nominally the end of the test function, but actually also after the
cleanup() call for this test, when relevant), which is why a Pass has
no location information.
Task-number: QTBUG-96844
Change-Id: Ib3f24f56266ff49bf3bc9759ac8263ac69a62130
Reviewed-by: Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.vestbo@qt.io>
784f5d76b9