[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2009-06-14 Thread Michael Foord
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment: Patch needs updating but still seems like a useful feature. I'll update and commit. I agree that decorator should be lowercase - should_fail or shouldfail ? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2009-06-14 Thread Benjamin Peterson
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org added the comment: Actually, unittest already has @expectedFailure. -- resolution: - out of date status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1399935

[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2009-05-14 Thread Daniel Diniz
Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +michael.foord versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 3.1 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1399935 ___

[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2009-05-14 Thread Daniel Diniz
Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com: -- stage: test needed - patch review ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1399935 ___ ___

[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2009-03-13 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Benjamin, is it on your plate? (or perhaps you already have a working patch somewhere? :-)) -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson, pitrou stage: - test needed type: - feature request versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 -Python 2.5

[issue1399935] enhance unittest to define tests that *should* fail

2007-08-24 Thread Georg Brandl
Georg Brandl added the comment: Shouldn't the decorator name be lowercase? -- nosy: +georg.brandl _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1399935 _ ___