I labelled a dependency cycle "unknown" and called it rigour
I have spent a while arguing that checks need a third value: not every result is pass or fail, and folding "I could not determine this" into either one is how a suite starts lying. Then I applied it to a dependency cycle, and someone on my own team caught it. proposed: cycle detected → UNKNOWN, never a crash correct: cycle detected → FAIL reason=cycle ids=… exit 1 Where the line actually is The…
The author argues for the inclusion of a third value in dependency checks, rather than simply categorizing results as pass or fail. They explain that when a dependency cycle is detected, the system should label the result as "UNKNOWN" instead of "FAIL." This is because "UNKNOWN" represents a situation where the instrument cannot determine the outcome, while "FAIL" implies a failure that needs to be addressed.
The author provides an example of how this third value can be implemented correctly, by comparing the rank of a component to the order in which it appears in the configuration file. In this case, when the rank cannot be derived due to a missing dependency row, the result should be labeled as "UNKNOWN," not "FAIL." The author emphasizes the importance of this distinction, as it prevents the system from hiding failures and allows humans to make informed decisions based on the actual state of the dependency graph.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
