|
Boost : |
From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-23 21:57:32
Actually, just having the expected number is not very accurate... what if
by some freak accident an expected failure turns into a success while at
the same time a usually successful test starts to fail. The number of
failures will stay the same, telling us nothing about the problems that
are occuring. It would be much better to have a specific list of the tests
that are expected to fail.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, rogeeff wrote:
rogeef> New Test Library present mechanism for defining expected number of
rogeef> failures. You still need to set appropriate value for each compiler.
rogeef>
rogeef> Gennadiy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Siek http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/
Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) office phone: (812) 855-3608
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk