Mark some xfails from #10042 as non-strict #11832
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
|
Thanks @jobh! Indeed those tests are likely flaky and should not be strict xfailures. |
nicoddemus
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While debugging #11825 (comment) in hypothesis, I was sidetracked by some
xfails that unexpectedly passed. Based on #10042 (comment) and #10042 (comment) it looks like these particular ones should not fail the test suite if they unexpectedly pass.This trivial change has no linked issue, and does not require a changelog entry or AUTHORS addition.