From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-13 17:23:45
"Dave Steffen" <dgsteffen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > BOOST_CHECK(!sameobject.doesntwork());
> Well, that looks like any other test assertion, and results in a pass
> or fail. What we're after here is something different: we're
> distinguishing between two different kinds of failures, and we want
> them reported as such. In contrast, what you've got above turns an
> "expected failure" into a "pass", which isn't what we want.
This is really the same what "expected failure" feature does: "temporary"
shut up failing test case.
> There is a larger question, that is probably better directed at
> Gennady, since he wrote the library: why support expected failures?
> What do "expected failures" mean? What's the use case? This is,
> however, a different discussion (that we can have if people are
IMO it should be used primarily as either a temporary solution in case you
need to clean up your regression test charts before release and don't have
time to fix the failing assertion or as a portability tool when particular
assertion is expected to fail under some of the configurations you test
against. There may be other usages, but you need not overuse it.
> But the point is that failures and expected failures are
> reported differently. There are, in effect, three possible outcomes
> of a test: pass, fail, and fail (but we expected it to).
> What I'm asking for is that the "expected failure" notion be
> specified, not at the test case level, but at the test assertion
> level... but with the same reporting scheme as is currently in use.
I don't really see a big advantage over just commenting out the line in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk