|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 16:54:22
David Abrahams writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> do you know why it's there?
>>
>> I'm afraid you are the only one who can answer that for sure --
>> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost/boost/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
>>
>> My guess would be that at the time you didn't want to enumerate all
>> the failing tooselts (most of them, I'd guess), so you've opted for
>> simply putting a star there and having dark green for the few that
>> passed (if any).
>
> Now I remember what the issue was: I expected that putting the star in
> there would allow me to set up the message that would be presented
> *when* there were a failure but that it wouldn't cause the report to
> say that I expect a failure everywhere.
Doesn't sound right to me. How do you know whether your comment will
apply to the new compiler failing the test unless you took a look at
the failures? And why should it be marked up as expected by default,
anyway?
> When I expect a failure
> everywhere, I use an expected-fail test (e.g. compile-fail).
I'm afraid you are confusing explicit markup with test-case types.
The markup serves a purpose of accounting for compiler bugs we don't
want to/know how to workaround, while test cases assert the ideal
expected behavior. They are orthogonal.
> Is there really any use for the current behavior?
Yes. The fact that you could mark a test case as an expected failure
for all toolsets at once is a red herring, really. Whether the toolset
name contains the star or a name of the particular toolset, the markup
behavior is the same.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering