[Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 (original) (raw)
"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Jan 8 19:01:20 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
I like the way trial (from twisted) supports this. The test method is written normally, in whatever class makes sense. Then the test is marked with an attribute to say it isn't expected to pass yet. When the code is fixed and the test passes, you get that information in trial's output, and can unmark the test. This avoids having to refactor test classes just to update the status of a test.
So how is the mark added? I would suggest
@xfail def test_foo(self): self.assertEquals(0,1)
Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]