+1, though it might be necessary to document that somewhere on the site to avoid confusion
2012/3/28 Bill Graham <[email protected]> > Going forward we should at least enforce that new test classes are added to > the package that they test against. Let's not let the problem compound by > adding to o.a.p.test. > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I totally support this proposal. > > Testing is one of those areas where Pig does not shine. > > Cleaning up the mess there is definitely something I would like to see. > > > > Also, many tests have been replaced by e2e tests, haven't they? > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Gianmarco > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 20:55, Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Backwards compatibility is really important for patches etc, but I > would > > > like to set a line in the sand (even far out), where we give people a > ton > > > of headway, and then we allow ourselves to make big structural changes > > that > > > break patch compatibility. > > > > > > Big ones: > > > - Clean up formatting in files > > > - Change the test structure > > > - Change the source structure (going to happen with mavenization > anyway, > > I > > > assume). > > > > > > I'm sure there are other things like that. We could say "in 1 year, > this > > > will happen" or whatever, and for a couple months we could rebase > patches > > > against both to make it easier or something. > > > > > > 2012/3/27 Daniel Dai <[email protected]> > > > > > > > I'd like to but it's a huge project. We need to figure out what each > > > > test is doing and put them in the right package. We need to > > > > split/merge lots of test, also there are many tests cross packages, > we > > > > need to figure a way to deal with it. > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bill Graham <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Is there a good reason why almost all pig tests live in > > > > org.apache.pig.test > > > > > and not in the package of the class they're testing? This approach > > > means > > > > > that many methods need to be made public just for testing instead > of > > > > > package private. It also makes it harder to find tests in a package > > > with > > > > > 212 classes in it. > > > > > > > > > > What would people feel about changing this standard to put test > > classes > > > > in > > > > > the package name of the class you're testing? It would be great to > > move > > > > > classes to new packages, but then there's that whole breaking > patches > > > > > part... > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at > [email protected] going forward.* >
