[TIP] unitteset outcomes (pass/fail/xfail/error), humans and automation

[Robert Collins]

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.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20091227/ab1fda79/attachment.pgp>