I can take some time to make all the test to be NameTest style. -----Original Message----- From: Zheng, Kai [mailto:kai.zh...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 7:27 PM To: kerby@directory.apache.org Subject: RE: Tests name
Yeah, kinds of messy. So let's use the NameTest style for the consistency. It makes sense to pay attention to the test codes because some developer is already wishing to use them for their own sake, some of production codes initially started with test codes and some serve good samples to demo how to use the library APIs. Regards, Kai -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 7:18 PM To: kerby@directory.apache.org Subject: Re: Tests name Le 30/12/15 12:13, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Either TestXXX or XXXTest works to me, but better use only one style > consistently if we would prefer one. I've seen both used in other projects. > Thanks. Absolutly. In the same package, we have both styles being used : CodecTest.java CodecTestUtil.java KerberosTimeTest.java TestAsRepCodec.java TestAsReqCodec.java TestPaPkAsRep.java TestPkinitAnonymousAsRepCodec.java TestPkinitAnonymousAsReqCodec.java TestPkinitRsaAsRepCodec.java TestPkinitRsaAsReqCodec.java TestTgsRepCodec.java TestTgsReqCodec.java I'd rather use the NameTest format rather than TestName, as many of the other Kerby modules are already doing, but if the Kerby community decide to pick the other scheme, that would be fine. Kai just expressed the concern much better than I did...
