On Saturday 16 September 2006 01:31, Ovid wrote: > In this case, Test::Harness and friends report that 'ok 9 # todo' is > passing, not failing, but I'm reporting the opposite result. I think my > behavior is more correct because I'm trying to write things so that someone > who forgets writes a bad harness will still see what's going on.
Ugh. That makes TODO tests just the opposite of normal tests. That's not easy to explain. "Why not just ! the first argument to ok() or is()?" When I use a TODO test, I do so for a feature I expect to fail in the near future but pass -- whether due to my code changing or a dependency working better -- soon. Why should my modules fail to install because suddenly they work better? It's a *bonus* that they do so, not a penalty. -- c
