Andreas Raab wrote:
> Keith Hodges wrote:
>> I would like to know if anyone actually uses the #expectedFailure 
>> mechanism in SUnit as is?
>
> We have used it in Croquet to point out known differences between 
> platforms.
>
That makes perfect sense, I have attempted to craft a fairly 
comprehensive alternative solution for marking tests for various cases 
like this, in a class called TestCaseVersioned.

This enables you to categorise a test as of a specific platform, a 
specific release, a specific vm version, or even a specific release or 
later, or earlier.

TestRunner presents the option to filter out or select tests that are 
not expected to work for the current release, current vm version and 
current platform.

>> TestResult appears to me to be needlessly complicated by the whole 
>> concept of expected this and unexpected thats.
>
> As a user (and not an implementor) the complexity doesn't disturb me 
> one bit. If it can be tidied up it's certainly great but if that means 
> breaking the test framework I'm not to fond of the idea.
>
>> If there is an alternative way of categorising and running expected 
>> failures, would anyone object if TestResult were simplified somewhat?
>
> If the only benefit is a simpler implementation I fail to see the 
> value of the change for the people whose code this breaks. How about 
> making it simpler and keeping it compatible instead?
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
I am proposing to tidy TestResult to contain normal, failure, errors and 
passes, but would then have to come up with a scheme for mapping 
TestCase-#expectedFailures into the other scheme. Its doable I guess.

Keith

		
___________________________________________________________ 
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html