Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Scott David Daniels wrote:
>>> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/466288
>> my main nit is the name: the test isn't broken in itself, and doesn't need
>> to be fixed; it's just not expected to succeed at this time.
>>
>> the usual term for this is "expected failure" (sometimes called XFAIL).
>
> Would "expect_fail", "expect_failure", "expected_fail", or
> "expected_failure",
> work for you?
>
> If so, could you rank them? I don't get anything from "xfail", and I'm
> not sure others will either.
I'd be happy with either "expect_fail" (as the shortest) or "expected_failure"
(as the actual English term), with a slight preference for the former as being
just as clear, and requiring slightly less typing.
There's also the fact that unittest has a large number of test case methods
that start with "failIf" or "failUnless", so the "expect_fail" term aligns
nicely with those.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
