[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: marking a test in autotest as expected to fail
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: marking a test in autotest as expected to fail |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:58:43 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Rikki McQueary on 2/9/2009 3:20 PM:
Hello Rikki,
[note that by using "-- " as the start of your message, that your entire
mail appears as if it were your signature line, and was stripped when I
hit reply in my mailer; I had to manually copy-and-paste your text before
I could reply. In the future, please write the body of your message
before your signature]
> I have developed an autotest testsuite and within a list of tests I have
> 4 tests that are expected to fail. I am using the following code to
> indicate the specific test that is expected to fail:
> AT_XFAIL_IF([AT_EXPR_RESPONSE_TEST_P][([test.1], ['"i,j&i<j"'],
> [test.1c]])
AT_EXPR_RESPONSE_TEST_P is not an autotest macro, which means you probably
wrote it. If that is the case, please consider changing its name to use a
prefix of your own namespace, and leaving the AT_ namespace for official
autotest macros; that way, if autotest ever does add a macro by that name
in the future, you won't be faced with incompatible semantics.
Your quoting is imbalanced; you have more ( than ), and putting quotes
between AT_EXPR_RESPONSE_TEST_P and its arguments just looks weird. Why
not write this as:
AT_XFAIL_IF([AT_EXPR_RESPONSE_TEST_P([test.1], ['"i,j&i<j"'], [test.1c])])
>
> My question is: Is this correct? And also in the output instead of the
> test passing with an ok is there a way to signify the test failed but
> was expected to fail?
Yes, other than the quoting, that is the correct way to mark a test as
conditionally failing. And for an example output, the m4.git repository
has an xfail'd test where the output looks like:
9: Renamesyms collisions expected failure (macros.at:523)
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmRegMACgkQ84KuGfSFAYAZ0ACgzsjiL/xqL8ADTn87203TLCcU
kz4AoJ9CLW0Arfu0i28FiGr+IoPiJzbe
=ejVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----