Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:45:13AM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 1/15/07, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
WEll, it totally depends on the culture you've made regarding unit tests. Here, it's "Oh, it's unreasonable to think that all the parsertests will pass" but in other places its "Unit tests are super important and no development goes forward until all tests pass". I myself fall into the latter camp.
In case you didn't notice, though, 18 of the 19 failing tests are actually unimplemented features, not regressions. :) Maybe it would be best if we removed the TODOs altogether. Then we would get, appropriately, passes when we have no regressions, and failures on regressions. People might actually even notice when regressions crop up! (How long has that 1887 part 2 thing been regressed?)
I concur that this seems an excellent idea. If the terror level, er, um, error level is always greater than 0 then no one will pay any attention to it.
There could still be a separate list of parser tests we want to pass.
Matthew Flaschen