[squeak-dev] The Inbox: SUnit-cmm.116.mcz

Chris Muller 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
> feature.

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.

> PS.
> 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
Object!   :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190526/db7be6c8/attachment.html>

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list