Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think there is a question of whether we need a new toplevel > test_expect_todo - why would we add it if we can just reuse > test_expect_success? That way when a test failure is fixed all that > needs to be done is to remove the test_todo calls. Yup, that is one of the reasons why I favor test_todo inside the normal test_expect_success. A patch that fixes a breakage would come with a change to the tests that flips test_expect_failure to test_expect_success often had the step that were expected to fail outside the post context and did not make it immediately obvious what was fixed, and use of a more focused test_todo would make it more clear. Unless we gain a clear advantage by using a different top-level (e.g. some of the limitations like "not in a subshell" can be lifted?), I do not think we want to add one.
