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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059735.html below:

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

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Scott David Daniels wrote:
 > Would "expect_fail", "expect_failure", "expected_fail", or
 > "expected_failure", work for you?

None of these use the same naming convention as the other unittest object 
attributes.  Perhaps something like failureExpected?

I'd definately prefer something that reads cleanly; mirroring the exact form 
of the word "fail" doesn't make sense; making it readable does.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.   <fdrake at acm.org>

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Checking in a broken test was: Re: [Python-checkins]r41940 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_compiler.py
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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