[squeak-dev] The Inbox: SUnit-cmm.116.mcz
ma.chris.m at gmail.com
Sun May 26 20:00:15 UTC 2019
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:20 PM Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de>
> Am So., 26. Mai 2019 um 20:56 Uhr schrieb Chris Muller <
> asqueaker at gmail.com>:
>> Right. Expected failures should be put into their own #test.. method
>> and not mixed with assertions that are expected to pass. Otherwise,
>> the SUnit domain won't be able to properly express to you the state of
>> those tests, as you said.
> Makes sense. Hope everyone is aware of that for the future use of the
And for present use, too, since mixing them would present the same issue
today as well. As the test developer is required to specify
expectedFailures at #test..method level, they'll probably be naturally
inclined to put only that group of should:'s in there. They're generally
rare, exceptional cases.
> I came across an apparent "self
>> contradiction" in the spec.
> > Whew I tried to read "self contradiction" as a Smalltalk expression at
> first... :-)
That sounds like an interesting behavior, we should implement that on
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev