I would create a KNOWNFAILURE (or something like that) for failures which are known but the developers won't bother to fix it for the present time. My two cents. 2012/1/11 Daniel Herring <dherring@tentpost.com>
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Daniel Herring wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jeff Cunningham wrote:
How about OK, FAIL, UNEXPECTEDOK, and EXPECTEDFAIL?
FWIW, here's one established set of terms: PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED, UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED (XPASS and XFAIL are not in POSIX; change test polarity if desired) http://www.gnu.org/software/**dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix<http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix>
See also these test protocols: http://testanything.org/ https://launchpad.net/subunit
- Daniel
______________________________**_________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-**devel<http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel>