Skip to content

Conversation

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Collaborator

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Jun 5, 2017

According to #9836 we're intentionally choosing to not support this until we have better proof of this being a big need. E.g. to protect against extensions. In a way that it's not better to push extensions to be fixed.

I went with the xit model since jest doesn't yet have a way to intentionally fail. We already have precedent for other xit in our tests.

@flarnie
Copy link
Contributor

flarnie commented Jun 5, 2017

Should we keep these tests around if we are not supporting this in the near future? If/when this comes up again, we'll look at the issue, which would lead to looking at this PR, and we can pull the tests out of version control history then, right?

Either way, thanks for doing this so quickly.

According to facebook#9836 we're intentionally chosing to not support this until
we have better proof of this being a big need. E.g. to protect against
extensions. In a way that it's not better to push extensions to be fixed.
@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ideally I'd want jest to warn if these tests start passing. E.g. because we add another change to how we're handling text nodes that might make it worth explicitly supporting this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants