Message183469
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, Julian, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, flox, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2013-03-04.16:19:46 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1362413987.08.0.622767227713.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
The docs are fairly explicit about the intended use case: "Mark the test as an expected failure. If the test fails when run, the test is not counted as a failure." (from http://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest#unittest.expectedFailure) Nothing there about being able to call some other function and have doing so incidentally mark your test as an expected failure (which I actually consider highly *un*desirable behaviour) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-03-04 16:19:47 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, terry.reedy, spiv, exarkun, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, hpk, flox, fperez, chris.jerdonek, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle |
| 2013-03-04 16:19:47 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1362413987.08.0.622767227713.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-03-04 16:19:47 | ncoghlan | link | issue16997 messages |
| 2013-03-04 16:19:46 | ncoghlan | create | |