[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2002-08-22 11:40:56 CEST

Colin Putney wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 09:28 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
>> Brane, thanks much for the XFAIL stuff. I've just one issue with it:
>> when "make check" is printing out the summary results, it treats
>> expected failures as "FAILURE"s. This is needlessly alarming -- the
>> whole *point* of the all-caps word "FAILURE" is to stand out and let
>> the programmer know that something's wrong, so don't commit now.
>> Tests that generate expected failures should print "success". They
>> behaved as expected, so they succeded.
> Yes, quite so. But this does raise another question. What happens when
> a test that is expected to fail doesn't?

After the test run, I print out a summary, then list the FAILs XFAILs
and XPASSes explicitly. So you do see the tests that passed unexpectedy.

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
Received on Thu Aug 22 11:41:36 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.