Re: xfail: expected failures

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

On Tue Jun 22 2010 at 23:07:55 +0100, Julio Merino wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> 
> wrote:
> [...]
> > Xfail will be present in atf 0.10 (according to Julio ;).  The current
> > implementation is a big binary hammer, meaning it is not possible to
> > specify where the test is expected to fail.  This may change for the
> > 0.10 release.  If anyone has any other ideas about what they would like to
> > see in the this department, I guess now would be a good time to speak up.
> 
> Please take a look at this design proposal I have written for the feature:
> 
>     http://www.julipedia.org/projects/atf/trac/wiki/DesignXFail
> 
> It is a bit different from your current implementation but I think
> covers all use cases that we discussed.  Comments?

Looks good, but it doesn't cover timeout (which I missed in the original
implementation).  Notably, timeout doesn't work either if you run the
test by hand.

I find the name atf_tc_expect_pass() confusing, though.