bug#23521: XFAIL

[Reuben Thomas]

On 19 May 2016 at 00:55, Peter Johansson <address@hidden> wrote:

On 05/19/2016 09:04 AM, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:

Another common use for "expected failure" is to write tests to check
>that error conditions arise as expected, for example, by checking that
>a program raises an error when given invalid input.

I agree that XFAIL can be ambiguous, however I think this usage is not
desirable.  It gives an additional opposite meaning to XFAIL symbol
which makes it even more confusing.

I agree. When I wanna tests that a program fails with incorrect input, I prefer writing a tests that calls the program, check that it fails (exit 1 or whatever is expected), and perhaps even parse the error message, and if it looks like I expect exit 0 aka PASS.

​Thanks. I shall continue with my "deviant" usage for now, but if that is not considered normal, I understand that you won't want to document it.

--

http://rrt.sc3d.org