Message123513
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | hpk, michael.foord, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2010-12-07.02:08:29 |
| SpamBayes Score | 2.7686692e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1291687710.9.0.400770730617.issue10548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I have to say that it would never have occurred to me to assert a pre or post condition and an expected failure where I expected the pre or post condition to fail, but if you've got a real use case and it would make the code simpler, I suppose I have no serious objection. I don't use expected failure myself. Just make sure you document it well, since it is not a behavior I would expect when using expected failure, and I'm sure there will be others like me. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-12-07 02:08:30 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, michael.foord, hpk |
| 2010-12-07 02:08:30 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1291687710.9.0.400770730617.issue10548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-12-07 02:08:29 | r.david.murray | link | issue10548 messages |
| 2010-12-07 02:08:29 | r.david.murray | create | |