On 30 Jul 2005, at 17:19, chromatic wrote:
(BTW chromatic: I'm curious why you didn't break todo tests into
separate passing/failing classes as you did the "normal" test?)
TAP doesn't, so I didn't see any reason to do it.
Well, I don't really see that TAP separates pass/fail todo tests any
less than it separates pass/fail todo tests:
ok 1
not ok 2
ok 3 # TODO
not ok 4 # TODO
so if you're splitting one up it seems sensible to split both
Now that you mention it, reporting unexpected successes might be
worthwhile -- but then again, Test::Harness::Straps reports that as
a bonus in the summary
anyway.
I can't think of anything useful to do with it, but if there is
something, I'm happy to make that separation.
For me it would be useful since my normal view of test results
separates them into three groups
1) Expected behaviour (passing tests, failing todo tests)
2) Stuff I need for information (skipped tests, just in case they
shouldn't be)
3) Unexpected behaviour (failing tests, passing todo tests)
Not being able to split passing/failing todo tests with polymorphism
seems odd.
In fact, in Perl 6, could I separate (1) and (3) by adding expected/
unexpected roles/traits/whatever?
Adrian
