|
From: | Peter Johansson |
Subject: | bug#23521: XFAIL |
Date: | Thu, 19 May 2016 09:55:51 +1000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 |
On 05/19/2016 09:04 AM, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
I agree. When I wanna tests that a program fails with incorrect input, I prefer writing a tests that calls the program, check that it fails (exit 1 or whatever is expected), and perhaps even parse the error message, and if it looks like I expect exit 0 aka PASS.Another common use for "expected failure" is to write tests to check >that error conditions arise as expected, for example, by checking that >a program raises an error when given invalid input.I agree that XFAIL can be ambiguous, however I think this usage is not desirable. It gives an additional opposite meaning to XFAIL symbol which makes it even more confusing.
Cheers, Peter
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |