RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jan 14 05:40:10 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059734.html

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   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://www.boredomandlaziness.org

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059734.html below:

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