Hey, On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jan-Marek Glogowski <glo...@fbihome.de> wrote:
> Am 07.10.2015 um 12:47 schrieb Stephan Bergmann: > > On 10/07/2015 11:37 AM, Jan-Marek Glogowski wrote: > >> I've implemented CPPUNIT_TEST_XFAIL to add test cases to a suite, which > >> are expected to fail. > > > > Do you have some explanation what this is good for? (My assumption is > > that one would just write the test code in a way that it is supposed to > > succeed.) > > The idea discussed in ESC was to allow developers to write tests for > bugs, even if they are not able to fix them. We also assumed / hoped > it's easier to write a test then fixing a bug. We'll see, if this turns > out to be true. > > Most times this feature is used for test driven development, where you > mark tests as expected to fail without breaking the build and when you > actually fix the bug you simply remove the XFAIL from the test case. The > idea is to prove you wrote a test for your bugfix. > Please keep in mind that this is possible with the current cppunit already. The only difference (I'm not sure if that is really a useful feature) is that your patch set provides a log about how many of these tests have been executed. CPPUNIT_TEST_FAIL already handles all the other requirements mentioned here. I had a discussion with Norbert about the usefulness of the new design as I think that the CPPUNIT_TEST_FAIL would have been enough already. I'll try to have a look into your patch set and at least remove all the changes to the existing API. Regards, Markus
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
