RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jan 14 05:22:49 CET 2006 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059733.html

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.

--Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059733.html below:

[Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940