Failing unittest Test cases

[Fredrik Lundh]

Paul Rubin wrote:

> > no, he means exactly what he said: support for "expected failures"
> > makes it possible to add test cases for open bugs to the test suite,
> > without 1) new bugs getting lost in the noise, and 2) having to re-
> > write the test once you've gotten around to fix the bug.
>
> Oh I see, good idea.  But in that case maybe the decorator shouldn't
> be attached to the test like that.  Rather, the test failures should
> be filtered in the test runner as someone suggested, or the filtering
> could even integrated with the bug database somehow.

separate filter lists or connections between the bug database and the
code base introduces unnecessary couplings, and complicates things
for the developers (increased risk for checkin conflicts, mismatch be-
tween the code in a developer's sandbox and the "official" bug status,
etc).

this is Python; annotations belong in the annotated code, not in some
external resource.

</F>