[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: xfail: expected failures
On Tue Jun 22 2010 at 23:07:55 +0100, Julio Merino wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>
> > 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.
> Please take a look at this design proposal I have written for the feature:
> It is a bit different from your current implementation but I think
> covers all use cases that we discussed. Comments?
Looks good, but it doesn't cover timeout (which I missed in the original
implementation). Notably, timeout doesn't work either if you run the
test by hand.
I find the name atf_tc_expect_pass() confusing, though.
Main Index |
Thread Index |