rupprecht wrote: > I suppose we don't really lose anything by moving away from `expectedFailure` > from decorators? >
Someone filed a FR ages ago for the standard unittest to take a reason for xfail: https://bugs.python.org/issue12681 tl;dr good idea but that ship has sailed. So, this PR isn't really "better", it's just more compatible. > Is it worth deleting the custom decorator that we have as well? 😄 Yeah, it's not holding its own weight. Tests can just write `import unittest; @unittest.expectedFailure`. I'll update the PR later today. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73028 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
