See https://testanything.org/tap-specification.html under "TODO tests".
Thanks Russ. But what Soham is describing is not at all a "TODO" item as described there. I'm far from familiar with the ins and outs of TAP and its conventional usage, but it seems like a matter of semantics to me. It can be convenient and intuitive to write a test such that it "fails", like Sohan's example of a syscall with invalid arguments. The failure is expected. Thus it's really a success, and the test could/should simply be written to succeed? Syscall fails -> test succeeds. I see Jacob's description of XFAIL is as described in the automake manual. I have to admit I never thought of it that way, but thought of it as in Soham's proposal. But I guess the Automake definition makes some sense. Although whether Automake eats its own dogfood in this regard is unclear to me. Looking at a few of the XFAIL_TESTS listed in t/list-of-tests.mk, they mostly lack any explanation as to why they're expected to fail or what needs to be fixed. (Not that I plan to investigate any such.) Anyway ... Soham, wdyt about changing your XFAIL tests to simply pass instead? Best, Karl
