On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 02:15, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Branko Cibej wrote:
>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Oh yeah...
>>>
>>> Summary of test results:
>>> 1037 tests PASSED
>>> 24 tests SKIPPED
>>> 24 tests XFAILED
>>> 64 tests FAILED
>>> 2 tests XPASSED
>>>
>>
>> Out of interest, are the two XPASSes a genuine fix of currently broken
>> behaviour, or are they just a fluke?
>
> I suspect these tests test a failure condition that isn't yet
> implemented (that is, they expect a failure to pass, but because there
> is no failure detected, they fail, and are marked as XFAIL). My guess
> is that wc-ng currently causes failures in these scenarios, though not
> for the intended reason. That leads to the XPASS.
Huh?
Too many unreferenced pronouns and double negatives.
In short: no, we've done nothing to fix broken behavior. We're trying
to precisely mirror the prior behavior of the various wc_entry related
functionality.
Cheers,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1286384
Received on 2009-03-08 03:01:30 CET