On 2/1/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having the test suite quit and say "Sorry, don't use this -- it works better > than we expect" seems awfully silly. Again, there's already a way to catch > your (rare) catastrophic bonus tests -- capture and check their return > values.
Yes it is silly. But I never suggested that should happen. What I said was that if a TODO passes then its an error. Its either an error in the tests or its an error in the code. One of the two. And thats not really something up for debate is it? (Well, i guess maybe it is if we going to contemplate programmers creating BS todo tests just so they can pass.... But thats just as silly as what you said.) So if there is an error presumably the test harness should be indicating, in detail, what that error is. That is after all the purpose of a test harness is it not? The error need not be considered fatal, nor suggest the code shouldnt be used (although i think a user would be entitled to be suspicious of code like this) but it should be clear that the code didnt behave as expected. At the very least its something that can be communicated back to the author so that he knows about the test passing successfully. This is useful information to the author and given the wide range of enviornments we build Perl and Perl modules in, its very likely that such information is unavailable to the author directly. I find the position that the test harness should NOT provide more info on this subject incomprehensible. What damage would occur if the test results provided a proper summary of TODO unexpected successes? Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
