Boost Testing :
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-29 20:29:55
David Abrahams writes:
>>> 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?
> Because of the nature of the test. This is a test that certain
> special cases will fail to compile.
OK, so here, due to the nature of the test, we have a case when you
know a priori what's your comment is going to be for any compiler that
fails the test, and this use case is not currently supported by any
existing markup mechanism.
>>> 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.
> No, I'm not.
When you shouldn't compare the two as if they belong to the same
category ;). Besides, you _do_ use an expected-fail test for the case
> I claim the very availability of '*' in the explicit markup *with
> its current meaning* confuses explicit markup with test case types.
? _You_ might be confused; the markup doesn't confuse anything. It
has a totally consistent semantics which keeps orthogonal things,
>>> 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.
> No, it's the central question I'm asking. Why would one ever want to
> do that?
Chances are nobody would ever want to do it. It's an artifact of
generic mechanisms used to implement explicit markup. It's not enough
of a reason to claim a right to assign it a totally different
semantics, though. ".*" as a Python's regular expression pattern isn't
much of a use either. I don't think you'd like to see it prohibited or
assigned a different meaning when used in some particular context.
>> Whether the toolset name contains the star or a name of the
>> particular toolset, the markup behavior is the same.
> I'm arguing for different behavior in this case.
That wasn't clear to me from your previous mail, and now that it is, I
don't see why you are insisting on occupying this particular syntax,
given that the resulting semantics would be quite different from other
cases which are going to look exactly the same to a newcomer.
I'm not even sure the use case is worth supporting: granted, currently
you have to update the list of toolsets every time a new broken
compiler appears in the reports, and in this particular case you could
have avoided it since you know that the comment is going to be the
same regardless any toolset details, but is it really that much of a
burden, considering that you still have to do a similar (or larger)
maintenance work for other test cases that are not that narrow?
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering