On 2 Jan 2012, at 4:10 PM, John Verhaeg wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:26 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: > >>> When hibernate.test.validatefailureexpected is false (the default), the >>> result from FailureExpected tests is simply ignored. >> >> :-( > > Hardy, I'm assuming from your frown, you don't like this for some reason. > This is the expected behavior, and the main reason for having these > annotations in the first place.
I am not following. Why does it make sense to have this flag set to false? The reason for the annotations (@FailureExpectedWithNewMetamodel and @FailureExpected) is to mark a test as expected to be failing. This means when I run the tests the annotated tests should throw an exception which in turn gets ignored as an overall test failure (the build completes nicely). AFAIU, hibernate.test.validatefailureexpected is there to take it to the next level. What happens if a test is annotated with a failure expected annotation and the failure does not happen. This would often indicate that something directly or indirectly fixed the problem with the test in which case I would like to know about it by a failing test (the test was marked as failing, but it actually succeeded => failure). How are we going to gradually remove the @FailureExpectedWithNewMetamodel annotations if there is no feedback when the tests are not failing anymore? So unless I misunderstand the intend of hibernate.test.validatefailureexpected I think Gail is right and it should be the default. Also the new metamodel should be the default on the metamodel branch with the build completing successfully. This means all failing tests should be annotated w/ @FailureExpectedWithNewMetamodel. As we implement the missing functionality and fix bugs we keep removing them until they are all gone. Now, this is what I thought @FailureExpectedWithNewMetamodel was all about. --Hardy _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
