[TIP] unitteset outcomes (pass/fail/xfail/error), humans and automation
robertc at robertcollins.net
Sat Dec 26 11:49:13 PST 2009
On Sat, 2009-12-26 at 14:21 +0000, Michael Foord wrote:
> >> I'm interested in this discussion but have never had the need for
> >> custom outcomes, so don't feel I can add very much here.
> > I think a very easy way to think about the problem is to imagine that
> > skip& expected fail were not in the standard library, and you wanted to
> > add them *as an extension*.
> Heh, fair. If you can suggest an API perhaps we can work on an
> implementation... Skipping and expected fail can then be reimplemented
> as extensions.
> With outcomes would we have the concept of "pass" and "fail" as
> categories of outcomes (affecting the way that they are reported)?
Something like that, yes. I think a decent goal is 'unaware reporters
report as pass/fail, aware ones with more detail and discrimination' -
though perhaps we can do better.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the testing-in-python