Re: RFC How to get rid of "always new" TestBot false positives?

[Francois Gouget]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, Zebediah Figura wrote:
> Okay, so, some thoughts:
>
> (1) How many of these are there? Have you compiled a list? Maybe we should
> just bite the bullet and add broken() for them instead, and defer figuring out
> why it's actually broken for later.

I missed the broken() aspect initially. The problem is broken() calls 
are not meant to be revisited. So we'd either need a /* FIXME */ comment 
next to it, or an use an unreliable() macro, or better some sort of 
todo(unreliable).

It seems the first two options would make the test failure disappear 
entirely so I'd prefer the third one which could issue some sort of 
message that would not be counted as a failure.

But I'm not sure any of this is simpler or better than what I proposed.