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


Reply via email to