On Tuesday 2014-06-03 15:21 +0200, Mike de Boer wrote: > On 03 Jun 2014, at 15:07, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > > I assume that the mochitest version will use a different reporter that > > doesn't throw-and-terminate, to preserve the current semantics of mochitest > > assertions. (If this assumption is incorrect, we need to have a separate > > discussion about that.) If so, we'll have the same methods but different > > semantics in the different harnesses. Not sure how much of a problem that > > is in practice... not least because I don't think people actually write > > xpcshell tests all that much. > > Ideally, run-until-failure would be a configurable option per test suite. For > example, in automation weโd continue on failure and locally weโd stop on > failure. Additionally, thatโd be configurable per test and per run.
Locally I generally want to see all the failures, since seeing the complete set of failures is often a much better hint as to the cause of the failures than just seeing the first one. -David -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
