I was thinking of a case where there are multiple files in a directory like.
TS_foo.java TC_foo.java fooTest.java CT_foo.java TS_bar.java TC_bar.java barTest.java CT_bar.java The current naming will generate a list of files like: barTest.java CT_bar.java CT_foo.java fooTest.java TC_bar.java TC_foo.java TS_bar.java TS_foo.java but putting the ??_ a the end as _?? would create a list like: barTest.java bar_CT.java bar_TC.java bar_TS.java fooTest.java foo_CT.java foo_TC.java foo_TS.java I think that when looking for all that tests for "foo" the latter list makes it easier. But I'm not wedded to it. Just my opinion. Claude On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/04/15 13:16, Claude Warren wrote: > >> On the other side of the discussion I would prefer that TC and TS be >> suffixes so we can find all tests for common componetns by name. >> > > (not worried about prefix/suffix) > > Don't quite follow that point. > > The surefire (for ARQ) setup has > > <include>**/TS_*.java</include> > <include>**/TC_Scripted.java</include> > <include>**/TC_DAWG.java</include> > > Andy > > > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the explanation Claude! >>> >>> Fetched the code from git but will only be able to take a look on it on >>> Wednesday due to a local conference. >>> >>> Now that I think about it I think the "CT" should go at the end as >>>> >>> CollectionGraph_CT that way all the CollectionGraph tests would be >>> together >>> and easy to find in a directory listing. >>> Assuming that we use TS_ and TC_ as prefix, I'd prefer a CT_ prefix >>> rather >>> than _CT, just to follow a convention. >>> Bruno >>> >>> From: Claude Warren <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected]; Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 6:33 PM >>> Subject: contract tests. >>> >>> I have added a contract testing branch and have added the contract tests >>> for all graphs in the core code. I also have contract tests for several >>> other interfaces defined but no suites to exercise them. I recall a >>> recent >>> conversation where tile names were given TS_ prefix for "test suite". I >>> am >>> thinking of giving the contract test suite classes a CT_ prefix (Contract >>> Test). >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Oh. As an outline: >>> >>> Contract tests are annotated with @Contract and define the contracts for >>> a >>> specific interface listed in the @Contract annotation. e.g. >>> @Contract(Graph.class) indicates contract test for the Graph interface. >>> I >>> normally name these with the word "Contract" in the class name. e.g. >>> GraphContractTest.java >>> >>> Contract test suites are annotated with @ContractImpl and >>> @RunWith(ContractSuite.class). The @ContractImpl annotation identifies >>> the >>> class under test. e.g. @ContractImpl(CollectionGraph) indicates that >>> CollectionGraph is the implementation under test. These are the ones I >>> am >>> thinking of naming with a CT_ prefix (CT_CollectionGraphTest). These >>> tests >>> generally have one method (a method to provide a "producer" of the class >>> under test. >>> >>> Now that I think about it I think the "CT" should go at the end as >>> CollectionGraph_CT that way all the CollectionGraph tests would be >>> together >>> and easy to find in a directory listing. >>> >>> Claude >>> >>> -- >>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web >>> <http://like-like.xenei.com> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
