On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 15:51 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > On Jun 22, 2008, at 15:45 , Norbert Hartl wrote: > > > On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:42 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > >> I made 3 more tests pass: > >> > >> - Fixed Monticello to pass MCSnapshotBrowserTest>>testButtonMutex > >> (Monticello-al.317) > >> - Fix FloatTest to not depend on platform for representation of NaN > >> bit pattern (KernelTests-al.67) > >> - Remove test testUnimplementedNonPrimitiveCalls (Tests-al.25) > >> > > Hmmm I'm not sure if it is a good idea to delete this test. It is > > a kind of test like ReleaseTest>>testUndeclared. It isn't critical > > but it helps moving to a clean target. I would opt to keep the test. > > At least I would turn it into a "expected failure" as long as we > > aren't far enough to state this to be totally clean. > > I'm fine with making this test an expected failure if we want to make > it pass in the future (in this case the test should exclude some cases > where it is ok that there are no implementors, like for tests that > compile those methods at runtime).
Hmm, I wasn't sure myself if a test case is the right place to check. Maybe those tests are better suitable in a class where they can be exectued. Norbert _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
