Well that's less crap than my suggestions! :)
On 2 December 2012 10:33, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com> wrote: > How about something like initTest? > > Gregg Wonderly > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1 December 2012 03:24, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: >>> Presently most tests have a lot of shared mutable state. >>> >>> This isn't helped by the setup(QAConfig) mutator method in the Test >>> interface appended. >>> >>> An alternative might be: >>> >>> public Test setup(QAConfig config) throws Exception; >>> >>> This would allow the test to return another Test object, fully constructed >>> with immutable state. >>> >>> It would also allow the test to create an object that can run several other >>> Test objects, rather than relying on inheritance. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >> >> Reasonable IMO, I'd observe what we've got now is a factory method >> which kinda doesn't jibe with the original intentions behind the Test >> interface. The Test object has already been constructed in order for >> setup to be called. >> >> Tricky as making more than basic changes will cause much work although >> I think that's the way this is going to go anyway. I'm somewhat >> tempted to say something radical like "let's just move this stuf over >> to junit" but for now how about we come up with a better name than >> setup that fits the intention better? >> >> I've only got crap names off the top of my head to suggest like >> "construct" or "build"... >
