Reviewed. Looks great!
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 00:21, Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1305338
Received on 2009-03-11 01:00:41 CET