http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa@perl.org/msg06865.html
has the previous round on this topic. My memory is hazy but my view was that people are using TODO in strange ways and making this a failure would break that. The strange way I remember (and has been brought up again by Chris Dolan) is related to dealing with external modules that are broken. The idea is that you mark a test TODO when it depends on an external module whose latest version is broken. To me, this seems far better handled by checking if the external dep is working correctly or not and if not, SKIPing the affected tests. One of the supposed benefits of using TODO is that you will notice when the external module has been fixed. That's reasonable but I don't see a need to inflict the confusion of unexpectedly passing tests on all your users to achieve this. You could do that with a developer-only test and that test should also be sent to the maintainer of the broken module. Another downside of using TODO like this is that when the external module is fixed, you have to release a new version of your module with the TODOs removed. These tests will start failing for anyone who upgrades your module but not broken one but in reality nothing has changed for that user, the installed modules are still identical but the tests that were considered "ok to fail" have now morphed into "must pass". Again this is avoided by simply skipping the tests if you find the well-known breakage in the external module. So I agree with you but a lot of other people don't, F On 02/12/2007, nadim khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The subject says it all. IE: > > All tests successful (2 subtests UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 7 tests skipped. > Passed TODO Stat Wstat TODOs Pass List of Passed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > t/20_policies.t 15 2 578 583 > > (nice reporting though) > > Nadim. >
