RetroSearch Browse

Sun Jan 15 12:00:53 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059748.html

On 1/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
> 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.

When I've implemented this kind of thing in the past, I've generally
called the decorator/marker/whatever "TODO" (or some variation of
caps/lowercase).

</bikeshed>

Thanks,
Collin Winter

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/059748.html below:

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