Karl Berry <k...@freefriends.org> writes: > See https://testanything.org/tap-specification.html under "TODO tests".
> Thanks Russ. But what Soham is describing is not at all a "TODO" item as > described there. > I'm far from familiar with the ins and outs of TAP and its conventional > usage, but it seems like a matter of semantics to me. It can be > convenient and intuitive to write a test such that it "fails", like > Sohan's example of a syscall with invalid arguments. The failure is > expected. Thus it's really a success, and the test could/should simply > be written to succeed? Syscall fails -> test succeeds. Oh, I see. The expected *behavior* is identical: the test is expected to fail, and if the test passes, that's an error that the harness should report. But the human-directed *meaning* is different: the test does not represent some known-to-not-work bug or missing feature that will eventually be fixed, but rather is just a more convenient way to write the test. I haven't encountered that scenario before, and indeed I don't believe TAP includes any semantics for that. -- Russ Allbery (ea...@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
