[Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

David Cournapeau cournape@gmail....
Thu Jan 8 23:27:46 CST 2009

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 :)

Done in r6308 - please tell me if something still does not work as expected,


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list