On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Carl Friedrich Bolz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > On 05/25/2010 10:22 PM, holger krekel wrote: >> i just released py.test-1.3.1 [1] which is inlined as svn/pypy/trunk/py >> and the pypy/test_all.py script is an alias for "py.test". This release >> particularly refines "expected-to-fail" aka "xfail" semantics: >> >> # abort setup or test function, reporting as "expected to fail", or 'x' >> py.test.xfail() or py.test.xfail(reason) >> >> see http://codespeak.net/py/dist/test/plugin/skipping.html >> for more details. Marking tests as 'xfail' is also good for >> tests that *sometimes* fail. >> >> I just did a grep of "py.test.skip" in pypy/trunk/pypy and >> there are 468 occurences [2]. Many of these skips seem to be because >> of implementation issues rather than platform/dependency mismatches >> and should thus rather use py.test.xfail. Being Skips kind of hides >> those issues between the rightful skips. The xfail/skip distinction is >> something that is happening in other parts of the Python world as well >> and i hope you find it useful as well. > > I think another thing is that many of the tests that are now skipped > should really be deleted, because they are completely outdated or > because it just does not make sense to support them. >
... but the sheer number of skips means that we don't even want to look at them (which was the xfail part trying to mitigate). Cheers, fijal _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
