[Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

David Cournapeau cournape@gmail....
Thu Jan 8 23:21:48 CST 2009


On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley <chanley@stsci.edu> wrote:
>
> I do not expect the trunk to always work.  I even expect it to have
> bugs.  However, I do not expect there to be test failures for known
> reasons that result in wasSuccessful() returning false.  This is a bad
> programming practice.  It creates work for people trying to figure out
> what is wrong when the answer is already know.

Well, I don't agree it is bad practice: it is not ideal, yes, but I
don't think using KnownFailure is much better. My rationale being that
known failures are almost never worked on because it does not bug
anyone anymore, and it is very easy to forget about them - AFAICS,
most numpy/scipy known failures have never been worked on after being
tagged as such. I don't think we have a good system for those cases,
be it known failure - or just failing.

I will tag them as known failure, since I am the only one against it, though :)

David


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list