Code review comment for lp:~lifeless/bzr/subunit

2009/12/17 John A Meinel <email address hidden>:
> I'll note that I personally find the expectFailure syntax to be
> backwards. At least, IMO, you should have an assert which *succeeds*
> which proves that the failure is occurring. Rather than expecting the
> assert to fail. Because the latter case means that it can fail for any
> reason, and still cause the expectFailure to pass.
>
> But, I guess we have what we have.

I don't mind renaming it or adding an alternative.

What I liked about expectFailure (and I think I added it) is that you
can just add it as a kind of preposition once you have a failing test.
 It's true it's less precise.

--
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>