On 23/09/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-23 19:35]:
> At least then the user knows there's a problem _before_ he
> <insert misfortune caused by non-functioning module>. Remember,
> this thread is about how the toolchain is really for the user's
> benefit. Hiding failures to avoid reports about known bugs is
> for the developer's benefit, not the user,
Maybe. Maybe not. When used to mean "todo" according to your
interpretation, then yes. When used for one of various other
use cases, then, just as likely, no. It depends on the author's
intent in using PRETEND_OK – which is what I was saying. :-)
Here's the problem though "just as likely, no. It depends on the author's
intent". What is the user supposed to do when confronted with a
message that means "there might be a problem, there might not, you
should check the author's intent"? If I'm a careful user running a
real system for real money, I have to assume the worst.
The author's intent is clear for TODO (if we stick to the documented
meaning). It's also clear from SKIP. Can you come up with an example
that isn't one of these meanings where test failures can definitely be
ignored (not maybe or likely or with further investigation but
definitely) by the end user? If you can then maybe it can be given a
meaningful name that makes the author's intent clear.
I can think of one: not testing this feature for a while because one
of my dependencies has a bug and is making me look bad on cpantesters,
hope you don't actually depend on this feature.
I can't think of a polite name for it though,
F
That is the beauty of naming after what it is vs. what it's meant
to be for.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
