Hi,
Paul Vriens wrote:
In my opinion the main purpose for skip() is to not run tests for legitimate reasons.
Alas, this sentence and the examples you give do not explain to me why to use skip instead of e.g. trace + return. What is the added value? What to do about that blue color or mention in the log file?
My principle is: do not produce output if there's no consumer. Refuse to write a memo if nobody is going to read it!
Why, on w95, should I use skip to mark the impossibility to call UTF-16 xyzW functions? Why not simply use if (W_isAvailable) { do_more_tests } We already have files that end up performing a varying number of tests, depending on simple if-then-else statements, without use of skip.
That's different from the localisation example: I could switch the locale, then re-run the tests. This is again this skip=="call for action" idea I mentioned previously.
BTW, I've sent two patches today to stop errors on machines with sound. The third one (the localisation issue -- milliseconden, you already know it) is written but currently at the end of my patch queue. That should bring the number of errors down to 0 on every machine with sound.
The final one, about how to deal with machines with no sound, yet trying to test something instead of skipping everything, I still have to think about.
Regards, Jörg Höhle