[cffi-devel] how to treat expected failures in tests

[Robert Goldman]

On 1/11/12 Jan 11 -1:16 AM, Daniel Herring wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Daniel Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jeff Cunningham wrote:
>>> How about OK, FAIL, UNEXPECTEDOK, and EXPECTEDFAIL?
>>
>> FWIW, here's one established set of terms:
>> PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED, UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED
>> (XPASS and XFAIL are not in POSIX; change test polarity if desired)
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix
> 

I guess I'd be inclined to say "too bad for POSIX" and add XPASS and
XFAIL....

The reason that I'd be willing to flout (or "extend and extinguish" ;->)
the standard is that there is no obvious advantage to POSIX compliance
in this case that would compensate for the loss in information.

cheers,
r