We should have a look at what adrian did now the problem is that understanding a large set of changes is more difficult than a couple of simple ones. If somebody want to help we are open. Stef
> I think Adrian Kuhn did that in his SUnit work. I also remember he also > introduced a difference between expectedFailures and expectedErrors. > > Doru > > > On 21 Apr 2010, at 10:16, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote: >> >>> Yea, I agree, the GUI is suboptimal. >>> >>> I still think, though, that treating this case as a failure is correct. For >>> instance, consider the case where you had added a workaround to a known bug >>> and when the bug is fixed you need to remove the workaround again. Maybe it >>> even leads to a wrong behavior now that the bug is gone. In this case you >>> really want to know that the test does not fail anymore. >> >> yes >> Now I have the impression that expectedFailures should be like passes, >> failed, errors: a state of the tests. >> >> Stef >> >>> In any case, I think that tagging methods as expected failures should be >>> done with pragmas and not with #expectedFailures. Like this it would also >>> be much easier to understand what's going on when you have a failure in >>> this test although all assertions pass. >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 08:22 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, if a test that is expected to fail does not fail, this is treated as >>>>> a failure. I think that makes sense. >>>> >>>> well it depends about the scenario. >>>> you put on expectedfailures something that gets in your way now, so after >>>> if it works even better. >>>> of course you should get notified that the test is green while expected it >>>> to failed. >>>> >>>> Now it leads to a UI problem where you have a failure that passes so when >>>> you click on it nothing happens: no debugger. >>>> And you can wonder why the hell do I have a failure when my tests pass. >>>> >>>> So I think that this implementation of expectedFailures is a hack. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 21:57 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I tagged some tests as expected failures and I got a strange behavior. >>>>>> On the the tests which was passing was listed under the failures. >>>>>> When I renamed the method without updating the expected failures my bar >>>>>> was green. >>>>>> So expected failures really expect that the tests failed? We cannto have >>>>>> green tests in there? >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Live like you mean it." > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
