Consistent naming scheme for unit tests?

[Kevin Funk]

On Wednesday 09 July 2014 18:51:25 Aleix Pol wrote:
> 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 .".

You're referring to tests just like benchmarks that shouldn't be part of 
autotests, right?

So we would end up in a directory structure similar to:
tests/
- auto/
- manual/
- benchmarks/

Yes?

In that case we would end up creating a lot of directories because of the 
amount of tests/ subfolders throughout our code base, though... 

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

-- 
Kevin Funk