On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Niko Schwarz <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > Currently, to mark a test as an expected failure, `expectedFailures` > should be overwritten > ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3976596/how-to-mark-expected-failures-in-sunit > ). > That's a bit tricky to figure out, so I added a comment to the method: > SUnit-NikoSchwarz.114. However, I think it's still a usability bug: > marking something as an expectedFailure isn't visible inside the test. > > I think expectedFailures should look through the pragmas of its tests > and return an array of all method names that contain the pragma > <expectedFailure>. > Yes, that's better. But in addition, sometimes we need conditions. For example: Smalltalk listPlugins contains: 'blahhh' ifFalse[ expectedFailures add: 'testBlah' ] or whatever condition. Can you do that with pragmas? the other problem is that we don't have expectedErrors as well. This is bad and confusing. cheers mariano > > Cheers, > > Niko > > -- > http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz > twitter.com/nes1983 > Tel: +41 076 235 8683 > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
