testtools-dev team mailing list archive

["Martin \[gz\]" <gzlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That sounds reasonable Robert. One thing I'm still not clear on with
subunit is how free you are to change details of the format versus
maintaining compatibility with the existing spec... which I couldn't
find anywhere last time I looked.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of testtools
developers, which is subscribed to testtools.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654474

Title:
  An unexpectedSuccess is like a failure not a success

Status in Bazaar Version Control System:
  Confirmed
Status in SubUnit:
  Fix Committed
Status in testtools:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  When the function passed to expectedFailure did not raise an
  assertion, bzr used to do:

      self.fail('Unexpected success.  Should have failed: %s' % reason)

  With testtools, bazaar now treats that as a success, as jam noted in February:
  <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2010q1/066898.html>

  And in September he pointed out the same thing, but with subunit:
  <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2010q3/070192.html>

  Subunit needs to roundtrip unexpected successes now that the standard
  library and testtools support them.