RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 13 11:32:47 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059729.html

Scott David Daniels wrote:

> OK I carried the code I offered earlier in this whole thread (tweaked in
> reaction to some comments) over to comp.lang.python, gathered some
> feedback, and put up a recipe on the cookbook.  After a week or so for
> more comment, I'll be happy to submit a patch to include the broken_test
> decorator function in unittest.
>
> Here is where the recipe is, for those who want to comment further:
>      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).

for the developer, this means that a failure is not a regression, and is pro-
bably not caused by something that the developer just did.

</F>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059729.html below:

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