On 24 févr. 06, at 11:34, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Nevertheless trying to make the changes I face a case where I don't
know what
would be the "naturally" expected behaviour:
for instance with
<not>
<verifyXPath/>
</not>
should the test break because verifyXPath is missing some mandatory
parameters
or should the test pass because the verifyXPath is nested in a
<not> step?
My vote is for the test failing:
<not> inverts the meaning of a valid verification, it should not hide
syntax errors in my test.
Otherwise, I won't have a chance to correct it.
Best
dna
--
A new version of a program isn't better because it has more
features, but because it adds features that you need.
-- Matt Neuburg, TidBITS#494
_______________________________________________
WebTest mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
