Re: [Pharo-dev] expected failures

[btc]

Camillo Bruni wrote: On 2014-02-25, 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. I prefer: self should: [ self operationThatShouldFail ] raise: ASpecificError Otherwise you can just run the code itself: self operationThatShouldFail the test framework will take care of it and mark the test correctly as a failure. Camillo, I don't quite follow your second case.  Do you refer to using <expectedFailure> ?  Doing that might be community convention, but "expected failures" for this makes me uncomfortable.  It is not specific about what the failure should be, so the occurrence of non-expected failures is masked.  I really like #should:raise since it is specific.  It would be nice if as many <expectedFailure>s as possible were converted to #should:raise, with <epxectedFailure> being used only for fubared tests being prioritised to deal with later on, with the ultimate goal of having no <expected Failure>s in the image. cheers -ben