Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 22 20:52:59 2002