Re: xfail: expected failures

[Julio Merino <jmmv%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> 
wrote:
> On Sun Jun 27 2010 at 21:59:31 +0100, Julio Merino wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > So what happens if you have (note commented xfail):
>> >
>> > body
>> > {
>> >
>> >  //atf_tc_expect_fail("bug without end FIXED");
>> >  some_call();
>> >  atf_tc_expect_pass();
>> >
>> >  ATF_REQUIRE(false);
>> > }
>>
>> Exactly the same as if atf_tc_expect_pass() was not there.
>
> I find that very confusing, but if nobody else does, ok.

The rationale I have in mind is: you are always expecting a test case
to pass; correct? So that's the default behavior.  You can change the
"expect" behavior to something else (like expect failure, expect
crash, etc.).  But if you want to go back to the regular behavior (for
cleanup steps, or for some othe reason), then you just "expect pass".

-- 
Julio Merino