Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

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