At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:31:20 -0700,
Eric Schulte wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> David Maus writes:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600,
> > Eric Schulte wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when
> >> dependencies are missing, a
David Maus writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600,
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when
>> dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely
>> important. I think some version of the abov
Hi Eric,
At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when
> dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely
> important. I think some version of the above would be worthwhile if it
> cou
David Maus writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently tests with missing dependency are silently skipped -- it
> might be worth changing this behavior to not skip them, but mark them
> as expected to fail. You can do this in ERT by placing the
> keyword :expected-result followed by either :passed or :failed
Hi all,
Currently tests with missing dependency are silently skipped -- it
might be worth changing this behavior to not skip them, but mark them
as expected to fail. You can do this in ERT by placing the
keyword :expected-result followed by either :passed or :failed before
the test's body.
Benefi
