I think that this article tracks that issue offering some solutions.
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4603 Not sure if it can be helpful. Martin On 7/7/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not as far as I know :-(. I know TestNG supports different strategies for this kind of behavior , but I cannot recall having support for this in JUnit. ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. --- (http://themindstorms.blogspot.com) On 7/7/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Question to any JUnit gurus out there: Is there a standard way or a > best practice for creating unit tests for known issues for which no > immediate fix is expected? There are currently a few such tests in the > Jackrabbit test suite, but because they just report as "FAILED", it is > difficult to see whether the failures were caused by a recent change > or if they are just known issues. > > I think it is very valuable to have those known issue tests included > in the test suite, but it would make more sense if they'd be reported > as TODOs or just skipped unless explicitly asked for. > > The TODO: blocks in Perl's Test::More handle this very nicely, but I > don't know of any similar feature in JUnit except explicitly skipping > the tests based on a system property setting. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting > > -- > Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development >
