Re: [Boost-testing] broken reporting of failure expectations

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-14 23:39:22

David Abrahams writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> OK, I've double-checked this with Misha and he says that he indeed did
>> understand your use case back then. It fell through the cracks exactly
>> because of his reservations (expressed in that thread) about providing
>> this functionality under the star syntax.
>
> I don't really care what syntax we use, but I'm beginning to wish very
> strongly for the functionality under *some* syntax, because of the
> fact that when I put in the toolsets explicitly:
>
>  a. The XML file no longer really reflected my intention

If you meant your intention to actually apply the same markup to any
future failures, I agree, it doesn't.

>
>  b. I had a really hard time being sure that what I was doing made
>     sense.

OK, how would you feel about something like this instead

        <test name="interoperable_fail" category="Corner-case tests">
            <mark-failure ignore-unexpected-success="true">
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                <toolset name="*"/>
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                <note author="D. Abrahams">
                    This failure is caused by a compiler bug.  Templated operators
                    that combine different iterators built with iterator_facade or
                    iterator_adaptor may be present in an overload set even when those
                    iterators are not interoperable.  The usual result is that error
                    messages generated by illegal use of these operators will be of
                    lower quality.
                </note>
            </mark-failure>
        </test>

?

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering