Branko Čibej wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 04:07:15PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The thing I'd find useful is adding an optional comment to XFail and
>>> Skip; so for this test, you could Xfail(foo, reason="yeah we know its
>>> broken, this is issue #bla, foo@ is working on it, don't panic")
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, that would do!
>>
>>
>
> Guess what -- that's a bitesize (for me). :) And an opportunity to
> contribute some code, not just blab, after a long time. I'm on it.
>
r36475. Please review. We can adjust terminology.
This introduces the concept of a "work in progress" test; It's similar
to an XPASS, except that neither pass nor fail is treated as a test
failure. The test results are summarized separately so that they don't
get lost in the noise, and there's a separate kind of "work-in-progress"
description distinct from the test name.
I adjusted the patch-tests and one XFAILing fs-test to this new concept.
-- Brane
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1305230
Received on 2009-03-11 00:21:59 CET