Add some 'not tested' marks to avoid CI failure

[user202729]

As in the title. I don't think there's any advantage in running the test again.

There's only a very small risk of the fixer forget to delete the marker, but it seems like a nonexistent issue (whichever pull request that fix it should also remove the # not tested)

At least for those that doesn't segmentation fault or hang.

Side note: not sure what's a good solution to this. Maybe we can do #39470 instead? (but then it doesn't apply to meson…)

📝 Checklist

• The title is concise and informative.
• The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
• I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
• I have created tests covering the changes.
• I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

⌛ Dependencies

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 69331d9; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

[tobiasdiez]

I'm unsure if "not tested" or "known bug" is more appropriate. The former seems to be used more often when the tests have some side effects (eg a window opens) and thus you normally don't want to run the tests.

Otherwise looks good to me.

[user202729]

My vote would be to mark the failing tests with known bug ...

A test with "known bug" should always fail.

-- #39470 (comment) ?

there's always an option of adding a "known occasional bug" tag or something.

[tobiasdiez]

Suppose you have a isPrime method. You then want to test this method on a random number to cover the huge input space. If you get a wrong result in 1/x cases, this is a bug in my book.

But anyway, let's not get super focused on the terminology. The important thing is that these bugs are documented for users, and this is also achieved by using not tested.