[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Test XFail/Skip policy

From: Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:21:41 +0100

Branko ─îibej 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

Received on 2009-03-11 00:21:59 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.