David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600,
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when
>> dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely
>> important.  I think some version of the above would be worthwhile if it
>> could be done in a file-wide manner (as are the current dependency
>> checks) and wouldn't require duplicating the dependency check or
>> changing every test form individually.  Perhaps a file-local-variable
>> could be used to expect failures for every form defined in the file?
>
> I tried the approach with a file-local variable but it didn't work
> out: A macro can be expanded at any time, i.e. looks like there is no
> way to obtain a reference to the buffer where the macro is defined at
> expansion time.
>
> But finally came up with this one:
>

Nice macro,

The only downside I see is the requirement to wrap every single deftest
form which (to me) is too much overhead for too little payoff.  How
about the following which will register a failing test for each file of
tests not loaded due to missing dependencies.

Best -- Eric