Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC: Adds test_broken and test_skip macros #16105

Closed
wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

morris25
Copy link
Contributor

test_broken and test_skip can be used to designate tests that should pass but don't. In an attempt to be noticed by testers they produce a Brokenresult. test_skip will simply skip over testing, and test_broken will raise an error to alert the user if the test unexpectedly succeeds.

This pull request is a continuation of #15832.

@IainNZ IainNZ added the test This change adds or pertains to unit tests label Apr 28, 2016
@morris25 morris25 force-pushed the test_broken branch 2 times, most recently from cb86223 to dd7b571 Compare April 29, 2016 14:37
@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented May 27, 2016

Other than the test report always displaying the count of how many there were, how is "skip" materially any different than commenting out a test?

@omus
Copy link
Member

omus commented May 28, 2016

I think the current version @test_skip is materially the same as commenting out a test. The main advantage is that the report reminds developers that there is an unfinished test case to deal with.

@wildart
Copy link
Member

wildart commented May 29, 2016

How hard it would be implement skipping of testsets with appropriate reporting?

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented Jun 21, 2016

see #17038

@tkelman tkelman closed this Jun 21, 2016
@StefanKarpinski
Copy link
Sponsor Member

thanks, @tkelman

@omus omus deleted the test_broken branch September 7, 2016 13:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
test This change adds or pertains to unit tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants