[phobos] periodic test failures + auto-testing

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, December 19, 2011 10:00:21 Brad Roberts wrote:
> I still believe you're testing more than is useful. What kinds of bugs in
> this D code can these tests find? So far, they're far more pain than
> benefit. You're not going to find issues with time not moving forward, and
> even if you do, what would you do about it? You might find bugs in the
> underlying OS's dealing with file time metadata. Assuming you do, what
> would you do about it? Add to that my loathing for tests that require
> sleeps. Just get rid of them. At best, disable them but keep the code on
> the extremely remote chance someone reports a bug in the area and you can
> point them at the unittest to help debug.

I think that the tests _are_ useful in that they verify that the functions in 
question return roughly the correct values as opposed to being completely off, 
returning the wrong thing entirely. But it's also not the kind of thing that's 
likely to break once it's been written and tested, so it wouldn't necessarily 
cost us much to comment them out or put them in version block intended for 
more extensive tests - especially when we end up with periodic failures that 
we can't really control (that and having to have the sleeps is certainly 
annoying).

- Jonathan M Davis