New submission from Kit Choi <kc...@enthought.com>:
Following discussion in https://bugs.python.org/issue38296 The docstring of unittest.expectedFailure is misleading for people who differentiate "error" and "failure" when they read the sentence. This has a consequence of developers using the decorator without noticing unexpected errors are also silenced, which mean running a risk of their tests becoming unmaintained and invalid in the future. I suggest updating the documentation to include a mention of the current behaviour of silencing unexpected errors, so that developers are aware of this. Something like this?: Mark the test such that unexpected success results in a failure. If an exception (BaseException excluding KeyboardInterrupt) occurs, the test will be considered a success. If the test passes, it will be considered a failure. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation, Tests messages: 353557 nosy: Kit Choi2, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Clarify unittest expectedFailure behaviour in the documentation type: behavior versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.5, Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8, Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38320> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
