So far no one has responded to Brion's comments about how parserTests should be
modified. You are the customers. What do you want?
Should I just modify parserTests.txt to disable those tests that always have failed?
Should I do that and add an option to run disabled tests?
Or should I retain the known-to-fail status? If so, should I retain the option that
known-to-fail results accumulate as fails? If so, what should the option be called? Right
now it is --ktf-to-fail. There is one proposal to change it to --with-known-to-fail. Any
others? Which do people prefer?
Should we note anything new in the testrun and testitem tables? Specifically, should we
add a column to testrun that records whether --ktf-to-fail (or whatever we call it) or
--run-disabled was set (obviously the table would be modified only to note one of these
depending on which implementation option people choose). If we go with the known-to-fail
status, should we add a column to testitem that indicates that a test returned a
known-to-fail status? Should we leave these tables alone?
I do not have enough experience to determine which of these are the best options. You do,
so you need to choose. [Of course, you can remain silent, which I will interpret to mean
you really don't care]