Re: RFC: KFAILs [Was: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp]

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Actually I prefer the pair "kpass/kfail" to "xpass/kfail" and "xpass/xfail"!
> "xpass/kfail" looks weird and lets in some ambiguity.  Can you implement it
> as "kpass/kfail"?
> 
> fna> I can change things to accept the second form like setup_xfail does
> fna> and just make sure that one with no '-' in it was found (the bug id)
> fna> and error out if none was found.  Just let me know if you prefer
> fna> this instead of the positional first argument (I am now having
> fna> second thoughts about that).
> 
> I don't have a strong preference.  (It sounds like you don't either).
> 

Yes, I don't mind one way or another.  But I am more inclined to keep
things as similar as the ones that exist for xfail to avoid confusion.
So, I will only make the bug identification mandatory and keep the
rest the same as for setup_xfail (unless someone has a good argument 
for us to do differently -- I could not think of a good one).

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9