I would create a KNOWNFAILURE (or something like that) for failures which are known but the developers won&#39;t bother to fix it for the present time.<br><br>My two cents.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/1/11 Daniel Herring <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dherring@tentpost.com">dherring@tentpost.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Daniel Herring wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Jeff Cunningham wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
How about OK, FAIL, UNEXPECTEDOK, and EXPECTEDFAIL?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
FWIW, here&#39;s one established set of terms:<br>
PASS, FAIL, UNRESOLVED, UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED<br>
(XPASS and XFAIL are not in POSIX; change test polarity if desired)<br>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/software/<u></u>dejagnu/manual/x47.html#posix</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
See also these test protocols:<br>
<a href="http://testanything.org/" target="_blank">http://testanything.org/</a><br>
<a href="https://launchpad.net/subunit" target="_blank">https://launchpad.net/subunit</a><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
- Daniel<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
cffi-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cffi-devel@common-lisp.net" target="_blank">cffi-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-<u></u>devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>