Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

The --unexpected-pass should take into account output styles #333

Closed
xzyfer opened this issue Apr 20, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

The --unexpected-pass should take into account output styles #333

xzyfer opened this issue Apr 20, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels
bug

Comments

@xzyfer
Copy link
Contributor

xzyfer commented Apr 20, 2015

The --unexpected-pass should consider a spec as unexpectedly passing, if and only if, all the output styles for that spec also pass.
@xzyfer xzyfer added the bug label Apr 20, 2015
@saper
Copy link
Member

saper commented Sep 20, 2015

Every unit test should independent. Currently every output format variant constitutes a separate case. This means that even if we only check for an error or status code ( #494 ) we can run up to 4 tests. Are there cases in real life when this matter? Because to implement this all output formats would need to became assertions in one test, which complicates things a bit.

@xzyfer
Copy link
Contributor Author

xzyfer commented Sep 21, 2015

Currently determining if a test has magically started passing is PITA.

IMHO the underlying sass spec data model is broken which makes these hard. We treat the entire spec as a single suite with 1000s of unit tests. Instead each spec folder should a suit and it's expected outputs as unit tests. If a single unit test fails that suite should fail. If a suite fails it's parent has failed etc..

@saper
Copy link
Member

saper commented Sep 21, 2015

Note to self: the problematic issues are

spec/libsass-todo-tests/libsass/propsets
spec/libsass-todo-issues/issue_1026
spec/libsass-partial-issues/issue_1294

saper added a commit to saper/sass-spec that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2015
@saper
Introduce expected_output.todo markers
889cb8a 
If expected*.todo file is present (alongside of the .css file)
this marks this test as "todo", which can be ignored with
--ignore-todo.

Therefore test which have some output formats passing,
but not the other ones can have a more fine-grained "todo"
granularity. Such tests should not be in the folders
that contain "todo", since then a whole test may be skipped.

Should fix: sass#333
@saper saper mentioned this issue Sep 21, 2015
Closed
saper added a commit to saper/sass-spec that referenced this issue Sep 22, 2015
@saper
Introduce expected_output.todo markers
c2f280a 
If expected*.todo file is present (alongside of the .css file)
this marks this test as "todo", which can be ignored with
--ignore-todo.

Therefore test which have some output formats passing,
but not the other ones can have a more fine-grained "todo"
granularity. Such tests should not be in the folders
that contain "todo", since then a whole test may be skipped.

Should fix: sass#333
@saper saper mentioned this issue Nov 13, 2015
Closed
@saper
Copy link
Member

saper commented Apr 26, 2016

We no longer cater for different output styles.

@saper saper closed this as completed Apr 26, 2016
@chriseppstein
Copy link
Contributor

--unexpected-pass no longer exists. Use --probe-todo instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Introduce expected_output.todo markers saper/sass-spec
3 participants
@chriseppstein @saper @xzyfer