[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Why is there an error in this test run?
- From: Bert Frees <bertfrees@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:46:46 +0200
Keith Creasy writes:
> Then, what you are calling an "expected failure" is actually a passing test.
> So, it should say "passed".
>
> If I write a test that says something like
> AssertFalse(1 == 0, "Test that 1 is not equal to 0.");
>
> Then the test passes.
>
> It's not a big deal I guess. Interesting that Mesar interpreted it
> differently from you which tells me that the meaning is ambiguous. He thought
> it meant failing tests that for bugs that have not been addressed. You are
> saying that the test really passed because you got the expected results.
Potato, potahto :) Mesar and I mean the same thing. What about this? A
special test result that doesn't abort the build (from that view it's a
PASS) but that nevertheless points out something is fishy (from that
view it's a FAIL).
You could do it the Java/JUnit way which doesn't support expected
failures if you like that better. But to me "expected failure" still
means more then just "passed" so why throw away that useful information?
It would defeat the whole point of this kind of tests.
Now that I come to think of it, with JUnit you can annotate failing
tests with @Ignore, but that is slightly less useful because it doesn't
run the test at all, so you won't be alarmed when an expected failure
suddenly doesn't fail anymore.
Would you be happy if these tests would be moved to the bug tracker?
The risk is that bugs will be forgotten because you're not confronted
with them every day. Nobody ever looks at the Google Code issues.
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
