Checkins and test passing
simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 07:01:05 EDT 2006
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
>>I think it would be a nice requirement that for a test to be marked as
>>expected-to-fail there must be an open bug about it.
> Hmm. Isn't the meaning upside down here? I thought an "expected
> failure" was a program that is supposed to fail by the rules of the
The meaning of these terms as we use them here is:
fail = "exhibits incorrect behaviour"
expected = "we know about the bug and don't intend to fix it soon"
the other meaning, that you were expecting, is
fail = "exits with a non-zero exit code"
expected = "exiting with non-zero exit code is the correct behaviour"
We probably aren't consistent with our use of the terminology in the test suite,
that's something we should fix (eg. there's a compile_fail function which refers
to the "non-zero exit code" menaing of "fail").
"desired" wouldn't be right - all failures are undesired.
More information about the Cvs-ghc