From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-23 20:18:33
--- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> Hello,
> How should we handle testcase that aren't intended to fail, but
we know
> they are going to fail? For instance,
> libs/regex/test/c_compiler_checks/wide_posix_api_check.cpp is, of
course,
> only going to work if we have wide character support on the system.
So when
> BOOST_NO_CWCHAR is defined, there are a few options for handling
this
> situation:
> 1) Perform the test as-is, and deal with the fact that the
failure will
> always be there
> 2) Modify the test so that it merely prints out an error string
describing
> that wide characters aren't supported, but still passes (because it
is a
> known limitation).
> 3) Don't run the test at all for the platform. This would require
the
> regression testing system to know when a test will always fail,
i.e., it
> would need much of the knowledge of the config system.
>
> Personally, #3 would be my favorite if not for the technical
hurdles. #1 is
> abominable to me, because we will _never_ achieve a clean build of
Boost if
> we allow errors to show up on the regression testing dashboard:
it's a
> slippery slope. #2 wins by default in my mind.
>
> Doug
New Test Library present mechanism for defining expected number of
failures. You still need to set appropriate value for each compiler.
Gennadiy.