Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>At least one test FAILED, checking c:\Home\brane\src\svn\repo\tests.log
>>Failed tests:
>>FAIL: getopt_tests.py 7: run svn help bogus-cmd
>>Unexpected passes:
>>XPASS: getopt_tests.py 1: run svn with no arguments
>> vs.
>>
>>At least one test FAILED, checking c:\Home\brane\src\svn\repo\tests.log
>>XPASS: getopt_tests.py 1: run svn with no arguments
>>FAIL: getopt_tests.py 7: run svn help bogus-cmd
>> I'll only commit one of them. I'm not going to change the output
>>based on test `id -u` = "kfogel". :-)
>>
>>
>
>Oh, I prefer the latter, but only mildly. If XPASS is really a
>tradition, that means there's less point explaining it in the output.
>
>But if you prefer the other one, that's fine too.
>

O.K., r3016 is your friend.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org