Re: --XFAIL--

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, zoe <zoe.slattery@googlemail.com> wrote: >> In general the idea is to be able to mark a set of tests that you don't want >> to worry about right now (for whatever reason) so that it makes it slightly >> easier to pick out unexpected failures. > > And for this to work correctly, people have to remember to remove the > XFAIL section when the bug is fixed, otherwise once the fix breaks the > test will incorrectly end up again in the "expected failure" section. Yes, that's the main idea behind this feature :-) Another nice addition (based on Hannes suggestion) would be to allow SKIPIF to detect a die("xfail") (it works with "skip" now) so one can add a conditional xfail. A good example is a test working with a given version of a library and fails with older versions (libxml has a couple of such cases as well as gd). Thanks for your work! Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org