IMO tests are meant to be run regularly or are otherwise meaningless and doomed to bitrot and fail without anybody noticing. As our testing policy is generally designed around testing MRs and nightly runs of the test suite in non-interactive mode, I don't see much value in interactive tests. People may run a couple of tests in interactive mode but nobody will run the entire test suite when reviewing.
I always run interactive tests for modules which I maintain. I also think that tests don't have to be run regularly to have meaning. They can also act as documentation. Our tests have always served the purpose of being both conformance tests and regression tests. Only the latter demands regular running, and frankly, there is a lot of wiggle room on what constitutes "regular". I think it would be better if someone™ was regularly running the whole test suite with interactive tests included. But even in the absence of that I would rather have our interactive tests than not.
If necessary I think we could perhaps consider increasing the test timeouts on a case-by-case basis, but it's usually better to try to find some interesting test subset rather than being exhaustive. Looking at the change here I would say that testing the entire parameter matrix seems a bit overkill, and only varying over one dimension at a time would be enough?
Yeah, this seems overkill. Even if I was running interactive tests it's too much. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/9694#note_128705