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...


Reply via email to