On 2/17/07, James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jerry gay wrote:
> On 2/17/07, via RT James Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The file which is failing the test is a Parrot source file (which
>> happens to be a Parrot test file) -- not a Perl source file (which
>> happens to be a Perl test file). So the test at line 75 is correctly
>> formatted.
>>
>> particle: You recently added this test. Was it passing for you?
>>
> as noted in my svn log at time of checkin, this is a failing test
> which exposes a bug in Parrot::Distribution.
If this were a CPAN module, I would recommend adding that test inside a
TODO block. It's a test I currently expect to fail but want to know
when it's fixed and "unexpectedly passes."
since parrot's constantly under development, we generally check in
failing tests to trunk as a reminder, since todo tests largely go
unnoticed. these tests are converted to todo tests before a release,
so they won't fail for those users.
for a long time, the canonical reference for TODO items has been the
source tree, whether code comments or tests. we're slowly migrating
towards using RT as canon, but we're not there yet.
Are TODO blocks options for Parrot tests?
yes, and there are plenty in the suite already.
~jerry
