Re: xfail: expected failures

[Garrett Cooper <yanegomi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Julio Merino <jmmv%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> 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".

    Maybe there should be an ability to reset the expectations to the
default :) (or maybe just change the expectations to any arbitrary
state)?
-Garrett