I would create a KNOWNFAILURE (or something like that) for failures which are known but the developers won't bother to fix it for the present time.
My two cents. 2012/1/11 Daniel Herring <dherr...@tentpost.com> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Daniel Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jeff Cunningham wrote: >> >>> How about OK, FAIL, UNEXPECTEDOK, and EXPECTEDFAIL? >>> >> >> FWIW, here's one established set of terms: >> PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED, UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED >> (XPASS and XFAIL are not in POSIX; change test polarity if desired) >> http://www.gnu.org/software/**dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix<http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix> >> > > See also these test protocols: > http://testanything.org/ > https://launchpad.net/subunit > > > - Daniel > > ______________________________**_________________ > cffi-devel mailing list > cffi-devel@common-lisp.net > http://lists.common-lisp.net/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-**devel<http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel> >
_______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
