I would say that the naming isn't that bad - as long as we can find information *somewhere* in the test. Personally, I've seen too many tests that point you clearly to a bug / WL / whatever but still don't provide you with any information on *why* things are as they are within the test.
Truth be told, we have bug cases scattered everywhere. A bug contains an UPDATE statement, it goes in update.test. Someone else sees it and decides it should be in ddl.test, someone else gives it a separate case. The test-suite allows for a certain amount of free-form organization and I think we could lose our minds if we tried to keep things too orderly. However, as long as the following information is available and the test gets run, I think we're good: 1) Regression info - bug / bug description 2) How the test works - if it is anything tricky at all, please explain what we're looking for and how to tell if things have broken - make it as easy as possible to determine if the test is really broken. 3) The test is named / located somewhere appropriate. We might not want DELETE FROM cases in optimizer.test, but as long as the organization makes *some* kind of sense, we're still getting the benefits of running the test against the server. One thing we have talked about is having a proper 'regressions' suite, which would make sense. It would help us understand what happened and keep things organized, but it's on the back-burner at the moment. Hope that info helps. Mainly just try to be informative - your naming scheme will be fine, Patrick On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Hartmut Holzgraefe <[email protected]> wrote: > Right now when looking for tests with "bug" in their name i find > > ./tests/t/update_is_truncate_on_temp_bug_lp387627.test > ./tests/t/parser_bug21114_innodb.test > ./tests/t/bug_lp611379.test > ./tests/t/mysql_bug2397.test > ./tests/t/bug588408.test > > so there are tests with just a bug number in their name (so that > one can only guess by the number of digits whether it is a launchpad > or bugs.mysql.com bug), some using "lp" or "mysql_bug" as prefix, > some only mentioning the bug number while others also include a > short synopsis in the test file name ... > > Personally i like the "$synopsis_bug_(lp|mysql)####.test" naming > approach as seen in "update_is_truncate_on_temp_bug_lp387627.test" > best (even though it leads to rather long names) so i'm going to > name the few tests i'm working on right now in a similar way ... > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
