From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-23 20:18:33
--- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> How should we handle testcase that aren't intended to fail, but
> they are going to fail? For instance,
> libs/regex/test/c_compiler_checks/wide_posix_api_check.cpp is, of
> only going to work if we have wide character support on the system.
> BOOST_NO_CWCHAR is defined, there are a few options for handling
> 1) Perform the test as-is, and deal with the fact that the
> always be there
> 2) Modify the test so that it merely prints out an error string
> that wide characters aren't supported, but still passes (because it
> known limitation).
> 3) Don't run the test at all for the platform. This would require
> regression testing system to know when a test will always fail,
> would need much of the knowledge of the config system.
> Personally, #3 would be my favorite if not for the technical
hurdles. #1 is
> abominable to me, because we will _never_ achieve a clean build of
> we allow errors to show up on the regression testing dashboard:
> slippery slope. #2 wins by default in my mind.
New Test Library present mechanism for defining expected number of
failures. You still need to set appropriate value for each compiler.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk