Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>>Oooooh. I find that a bit confusing, because I think of the "X"
>>>prefix as standing for "eXpected", where as in XPASS it stands for
>>>"uneXpected".
>>>
>>>
>>Yup, it's confusing, but it's more or less standard (IIRC it's even a
>>POSIX stantard for test suites, have too look it up -- the dejagnu
>>documentation says something about that).
>>
>>
>
>Okay, I bow to the wisdom of the ages.
>
>
>
>>Right. I'm on it.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks, 'preciate it.
>

Right then, pick the output you prefer:

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". :-)

-- 
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