Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> many test frameworks support "expected failures" for this purpose.
> how hard would it be to add a
>
> unittest.FailingTestCase
>
> class that runs a TestCase, catches any errors in it, and signals an
> error ("test foo passed unexpectedly") if it runs cleanly ?
I don't know how hard it would be, but I would also consider this
appropriate. Of course, this should work on a case-by-case basis:
if there are multiple test methods in a class, unexpected passes
of each method should be reported.
Regards,
Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4