On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:34 PM, nadim khemir wrote:
Because a TODO means that it is not done not: it might happend to
be done but
I'm not really sure, maybe I get lucky.
Either one removes the TODO and all is fine. Or it might just be a
side effect
that you haven't planned that makes the test pass. Calling "unexpected
things" "features" does not make me feel more sure about quality.
This is exactely why I complained loud about
Test::Exception::dies_ok. It died
but not for the problem I expected. Other may be better or have
more luck
than me though.
I really would like to have -Werror for my tests.
Cheers, Nadim.
Then how do you prefer to express functionality that might work or
might not depending on what other modules the user has installed on
his/her machine? I think skip() is inferior to TODO in such cases
because the latter expresses the author's intention to make this
feature work universally in the future. For skip(), you don't know
whether it expectedly failed or unexpectedly succeeded -- it's just
skipped.
Chris
