Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I would say that there are two bugs in the case you are describing:  the
>>> one you meant to fix and the one which is the lack of any tests for the
>>> module / class / whatever.  I would bet that spending your thirty
>>> minutes adding minimal tests to such a module is a *higher* value
>>> activity than fixing most bugs, because it makes it easier for you (or
>>> someone else) to fix that bug and others in that module.
>> Good point.
> The PyPy project actually works with many tests that are not working.
> They have an infrastructure where such tests can be in the code and
> explicitly disabled.
> In some cases, the bug-reporter may be able to write a test and not fix
> it. Or, alternatively, the person who goes and tries to fix a bug can
> write tests but doesn't have time to fix them.
> In such case it would be nice to be able to add tests that are
> explicitly disabled and thus does not show up in the normal test run.
> Only when turning a knob these buggy tests show up, and a bug fixer can
> then easily go and try to fix them.
> One danger is that this can be used to temporarily disable tests that
> *used to work*. Then again, that's not hard to do now either.

I don't know how PyPy is managing to disable the tests.  The JUnit got a
recent extension, it seems, that addresses this.

See :

They use a "_ignored" suffix on the test methods and they appear within
the test runner report.


Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France)
Open Source ECM -
CPS Platform -
Mobile: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to