On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Niko Schwarz <niko.schwarz@googlemail.com>wrote:
Hi,
Currently, to mark a test as an expected failure, `expectedFailures` should be overwritten ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3976596/how-to-mark-expected-failures-in-... ). That's a bit tricky to figure out, so I added a comment to the method: SUnit-NikoSchwarz.114. However, I think it's still a usability bug: marking something as an expectedFailure isn't visible inside the test.
I think expectedFailures should look through the pragmas of its tests and return an array of all method names that contain the pragma <expectedFailure>.
Yes, that's better. But in addition, sometimes we need conditions. For example: Smalltalk listPlugins contains: 'blahhh' ifFalse[ expectedFailures add: 'testBlah' ] or whatever condition. Can you do that with pragmas? the other problem is that we don't have expectedErrors as well. This is bad and confusing. cheers mariano
Cheers,
Niko
-- http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz twitter.com/nes1983 Tel: +41 076 235 8683
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project