On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:13:20 +0100, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Duncan Booth wrote: > >> Peter Otten wrote: >> >>> Marking a unittest as "should fail" in the test suite seems just wrong >>> to me, whatever the implementation details may be. If at all, I would >>> apply a "I know these tests to fail, don't bother me with the messages >>> for now" filter further down the chain, in the TestRunner maybe. >>> Perhaps the code for platform-specific failures could be generalized? >> >> It isn't marking the test as "should fail" it is marking it as "should >> pass, but currently doesn't" which is a very different thing. > >You're right of course. I still think the "currently doesn't pass" marker >doesn't belong into the test source. > Perhaps in a config file that can specify special conditions re running identified tests? E.g., don't run vs run and report (warn/fail/info) changed result (e.g. from cached result) vs run and report if pass etc. Then if code change unexpectedly makes a test work, the config file can just be updated, not the test. Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
