[Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 (original) (raw)
Scott David Daniels Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org
Sat Jan 14 05:22:49 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 ]
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Scott David Daniels wrote:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/466288 my main nit is the name: the test isn't broken in itself, and doesn't need to be fixed; it's just not expected to succeed at this time. the usual term for this is "expected failure" (sometimes called XFAIL).
Would "expect_fail", "expect_failure", "expected_fail", or "expected_failure", work for you?
If so, could you rank them? I don't get anything from "xfail", and I'm not sure others will either.
--Scott David Daniels Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org
- 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 ]