[Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 (original) (raw)
Collin Winter collinw at gmail.com
Sun Jan 15 12:00:53 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 ]
On 1/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
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). for the developer, this means that a failure is not a regression, and is pro- bably not caused by something that the developer just did.
When I've implemented this kind of thing in the past, I've generally called the decorator/marker/whatever "TODO" (or some variation of caps/lowercase).
Thanks, Collin Winter
- 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 ]