Neglected forwarding to the list - sorry Eric for the double post. Brian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Wightman <midlife...@wightmanfam.org> Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [O] [test] Mark tests with missing dependencies as "expected to fail" To: Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when > dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely > important. I think some version of the above would be worthwhile if it > could be done in a file-wide manner (as are the current dependency > checks) and wouldn't require duplicating the dependency check or > changing every test form individually. Perhaps a file-local-variable > could be used to expect failures for every form defined in the file? Perl's TAP* (http://testanything.org/) uses SKIP results for tests that should not be run because some prerequisite is not available, and TODO tests for those that are expected to fail (due to not being implemented, known breakage, etc). They can be reported separately if the harness wishes. It sounds like this is what is being proposed. Perhaps some prior art could be used. * I reference TAP because it is what I am familiar with, not because it is better or worse than alternatives. Brian
