Hi, I tend to wrap then like this:
[ self operationThatShouldFail. self fail: 'why!'. ] on: Error do: [ "check that is the right error" ] > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-boun...@lists.pharo.org] En nombre de > Pharo4Stef > Enviado el: Martes, 25 de Febrero de 2014 16:51 > Para: Pharo Development List > Asunto: Re: [Pharo-dev] expected failures > > ben > > camillo once wrote a nice mail about shouldnot: Error. If I remember > correctly. > > Stef > On 25 Feb 2014, at 17:04, b...@openinworld.com wrote: > > > I'd like to better understand the semantics of "expected failures" in > TestRunner. It seems to me that if you want to ensure that a certain > operation fails, in a test you'd wrap it as follows... > > > > shouldFailed=false. > > [ self operationThatShouldFail ] on: Error do: [ shouldFailed := > true ]. > > self assert: shouldFailed. > > > > So is tagging methods with pragma <expectedFailure> or in method > #expectedFailures a temporary measure used to bypass a failing test when > the judgment is that it is not critical to fix immediately? What is the > process for tacking and resolving expected failures. It would give a > warm fuzzy feeling if no expected failures are reported in TestRunner. > Otherwise it leaves some residual uncertainty that something is wrong, > even though a failure is "expected". > > > > cheers -ben > >
