On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:29:31AM -0400, Anne Archibald wrote: > > Failures may be expressed using > > > > NumpyTestCase.failIf(self, expr, msg=None) > > That's not quite what I mean. There are situations, with the current > code, that it gets the answer wrong (i.e., claims arrays may share > memory when they don't). I know, and it's okay, and if it doesn't > there's a bug, but in view of possible future enhancements, I don't > want to signal an actual failure if it starts working. I do want to > test it though, so I was hoping there was a way to express "I expect > this test to fail, notify me if it doesn't, but don't call it a > failure if it starts working".
If the test is supposed to pass but currently fails, we can always add it using level=50 or so. That way, most people who run the tests will not see the failure, but the devs may still choose to run them. We could even display a warning when running the test suite with such a high level. Would such a scheme cause problems for anyone? An alternative would be to rework the test gatherer to filter tests based on some flag. Cheers Stéfan _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion