Neal Norwitz wrote:
> In the past, we haven't checked in tests which are known to be broken.
> There are several good reasons for this. I would prefer you, 1) also
> fix the code so the test doesn't fail, 2) revert the change (there's
> still a bug report open, right?), or 3) generalize tests for known
> bugs.
>
> I strongly prefer #1, but have been thinking about adding #3. There
> are many open bug reports that fall into two broad categories:
> incorrect behaviour and crashers. I've been thinking about adding two
> tests which incorporate these bugs as a way of consolidating where the
> known problems are. Also, it's great when we have test cases that can
> be moved to the proper place once the fix has been checked in.
many test frameworks support "expected failures" for this purpose.
how hard would it be to add a
unittest.FailingTestCase
class that runs a TestCase, catches any errors in it, and signals an
error ("test foo passed unexpectedly") if it runs cleanly ?
</F>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
