[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: xfail: expected failures
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> wrote:
> [Julio requested I send a small note to this list since there have been
> others interested in the feature]
Thanks for the work and sending the email!
> Xfail will be present in atf 0.10 (according to Julio ;). The current
> implementation is a big binary hammer, meaning it is not possible to
> specify where the test is expected to fail. This may change for the
> 0.10 release. If anyone has any other ideas about what they would like to
> see in the this department, I guess now would be a good time to speak up.
I'm planning on writing a small design proposal with the use cases we
discussed privately before implementing this feature in mainline.
It's a bit tricky and I would like to get it "right" from the start.
Expect something tomorrow or friday :-P
So far, the use cases are:
- Catch crashes as expected failures.
- Do not detect preparation failures as expected failures; only some
assertions/crashes are failures.
- Probably have ATF_CHECK* macros to check for expected failures, as
in some cases these are enough.
- atf-run can implement this feature but test programs themselves
should also do it.
Any early comments?
Main Index |
Thread Index |