Federated Learning (FL) typically assumes unconditional collaboration, a premise that overlooks the complexities of real-world, multi-stakeholder environments in which clients may need to exclude one another for strategic, regulatory, or competitive reasons. This paper addresses this gap, which we term 'client-level disagreements,' by first introducing a taxonomy of such scenarios. We then propose a robust, multi-track resolution strategy that guarantees strict client exclusion by creating and managing isolated model update paths ('tracks'), thereby preventing the cross-contamination and unfairness issues present in naive strategies. Through an empirical evaluation of our custom simulation system across 34 scenarios using the MNIST and N-CMAPSS datasets, we validate that our approach correctly handles permanent, temporal, and overlapping disagreement patterns. Our scalability analysis reveals the server-side resolution algorithm's overhead is negligible (<1 ms per round) even under heavy load. The primary scalability constraint is the client-side training load from participating in multiple tracks, a cost that we show can be effectively mitigated by a submodel reuse strategy. This work presents a scalable and architecturally sound method for managing client-level disagreements, and enhances the practical applicability of FL in settings where policy compliance and strategic control are non-negotiable.

Test smells are poor design decisions implemented in test code, which can have an impact on the effectiveness and maintainability of unit tests. Even though test smell detection tools exist, how to rank the severity of the detected smells is an open research topic. In this work, we aim at investigating the severity rating for four test smells and investigate their perceived impact on test suite maintainability by the developers. To accomplish this, we first analyzed some 1,500 open-source projects to elicit severity thresholds for commonly found test smells. Then, we conducted a study with developers to evaluate our thresholds. We found that (1) current detection rules for certain test smells are considered as too strict by the developers and (2) our newly defined severity thresholds are in line with the participants' perception of how test smells have an impact on the maintainability of a test suite. Preprint [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3744281], data and material [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3611111].