Fergal Daly wrote:
> The importance of the test has not changed. Only the worth of the
> failure report has changed.
>
> This could be solved by having another classification of test, the
> "not my fault" test used as follows
>
> BLAME: {
> $foo_broken = test_Foo(); # might just be a version check or might
> be a feature check
> local $BLAME = "Foo is broken, see RT #12345" if $foo_broken;
>
> ok(Foo::thing());
> }
>
> The module would install just fine in the presence of a working Foo,
> the module would fail to install in the presence of a broken Foo but
> no report should be sent to the author.
>
> This gives both safety for users and convenience for developers. This
> is what I meant by smarter tools.
I hope you don't mind if I cut out the rest of the increasingly head-butting
argument and jump straight to this interesting bit.
As much as my brain screams "DO NOT WANT!!!" [1] because it smacks of
"expected failure" it might be just what we're looking for. The allows the
author to program in "I know this is broken, don't bug me about it" without
completely silencing the test.
However, I think it will be very open to abuse. I'm also not sure how this
will be different from simply having the option of making failing TODO tests
fail for the user but not report back to the author.
It still boils down to trusting the author.
[1] http://www.mgroves.com/images/do_not_want_star_wars.jpg
--
There will be snacks.
