On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:39 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 01.09.2005 06:04:45 Manuel Mall wrote: > > We now have over 200 layout engine test cases in the repository > > which is great. > > Wow! I just hope nobody holds a grudge against me for introducing > that facility and pushing people to use it. ;-) > > > However, with this ever growing number I wonder if we should put > > some more structure to it. There is a real chance that we get more > > and more duplication just because people wouldn't know which tests > > are doing what so one starts writing new ones which may already be > > covered. > > I agree. > > > I don't want to suggest some complex system with the associated > > management, setup and on-going compliance overhead. But what about > > some simple naming system along the following lines: > > > > Most current tests (not all) cover a particular feature and can be > > described by the fo they target, the property they exercise and the > > particular aspect of that combination they test. Therefore giving > > each test file a name constructed like <fo name>[-<property name>]? > > [-<feature>]?[<serial number>]?.xml., e.g. > > > > table-padding-relative.xml will test relative padding values on a > > fo:table element. > > > > Yes, this will give us some longer names but will make looking for > > a particular test much easier as simple directory > > search/sort/filter operations will do. It will also reduce the > > number of tests which are identified just by a different non > > descript number, that is things like padding1.xml, padding2.xml > > will be replaced by something more meaningful. And yes, it will not > > cover every case especially once we get into tests which deal with > > the interaction of multiple fos and properties. > > Sounds good. This was bound to produce problems when it reached a > certain size. One additional suggestion, though: > > It would be good to separate feature tests from regression tests. The > latter could, for example, contain the Bugzilla number if a Bugzilla > issue is associated with it. I've thought about this myself a number > of times. I wonder if we should also separate the tests into multiple > directories. > > > If agreement is found on this I am not sure what the best way to > > actually do it with svn is. One way would be for someone (probably > > me :-)) to rename all the files and for a committer to simple > > delete everything in that directory in svn and submit all the > > renamed files as new. That would loose some history but I don't > > think its a big deal for these testcases. > > Certainly not the best of approaches doing that via patches. I'd like > to keep the history, so this means someone with commit access will > have to do it. I'm sure we'll find a solution to that. It just takes > a little more time. > OK, what about me making up a big rename script like: svn move padding1.xml character-padding-relative.xml svn move padding2.xml basic-link-padding.xml ....
and a committer can apply that? > > Jeremias Maerki Manuel
