Consistent naming scheme for unit tests?

[Aleix Pol]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Kevin Funk <kfunk at kde.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 July 2014 18:12:52 Aleix Pol wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de> wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 09 July 2014 15:50:12 Kevin Funk wrote:
> > >> > Hey,
> > >> >
> > >> > While working on kdevplatform/kdevelop in the past this one annoyed
> me
> > >>
> > >> quite
> > >>
> > >> > a bit:
> > >> >
> > >> > There's lots of different naming styles for file, executable and
> class
> > >>
> > >> names
> > >>
> > >> > for all the unit tests. This makes it hard to identify them when
> > >>
> > >> searching
> > >>
> > >> > for classes via Quick Open or when looking up test binaries in the
> > >> > build
> > >> > folder.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm proposing the following naming scheme (something I've already
> > >>
> > >> started
> > >>
> > >> > doing in kdev-clang):
> > >> > - test_foo.cpp (file name)
> > >> > - test_foo (target name)
> > >> > - TestFoo (class name)
> > >> >
> > >> > To be applied to all existing unit tests (potentially as a junior
> job)
> > >>
> > >> and
> > >>
> > >> > for code written in the future.
> > >> >
> > >> > Advantages:
> > >> > - Easy to look up via Quick Open because of the "Test" prefix
> > >> > - Easy to determine if a given class/file/target is a test, again
> > >>
> > >> because of
> > >>
> > >> > the prefix
> > >> > - Consistent!!11
> > >>
> > >> sounds good, +1
> > >>
> > >> bye
> > >
> > > Maybe we can follow  how it's usually done in KF5?
> > > - file name: classnametest.cpp
> > > - target name: classnametest
> > > - class name: ClassNameTest
> > > - test name: subproject-classnametest
> > >
> > > +1 for consistency anyway.
>
> I find it much more useful to prefix names with "Test", for above-mentioned
> reasons. That's also how it's usually done in Qt, for example
> "tst_quickmousearea". Do you have strong objections against this?
>
> I like the idea about the test name, though. Having them contain the module
> name makes sense.
>
I don't love it, but won't oppose it.

The quickopen argument is ok, but it's just about swapping the order.


> Greets
>
> > > Aleix
> >
> > Oh, and separation between autotests and tests is interesting too.
>
> Good idea as well. Although that's easy to separate by having non-auto
> tests
> not prefixed with "test_", for example "duchainify".
>

Well, the thing is that you'll have to go to the test directory eventually
and look what's in there. For autotest you just "ctest .".


>
> > Aleix
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Kevin Funk
>

Aleix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20140709/bedace00/attachment.html>