A few more coats of paint for the bike shed: > On May 9, 2017, at 10:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com > <mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote: > <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0> > <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>On May 9, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Michael Catanzaro > < <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>mcatanz...@igalia.com > <mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com>> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com >>> <mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote: >>>> How about just Tests? >>>> Or alternately, RegressionTests. But I like just plain Tests. >>> Then we should move ManualTests >> I'd be in favor of burying this somewhere deeper. As it is, people are still >> adding tests here, which is kind of a disaster. These tests are very rarely >> run, so a manual test is often barely better than no test at all. We should >> also put a file in this directory strongly discouraging the addition of new >> manual tests IMO. >>> , PerformanceTests, >> Could be renamed Benchmarks. > >> >> >>> On May 9, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@igalia.com >>> <mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com>> wrote: >> >>> , PerformanceTests, >> >> Could be renamed Benchmarks. > > I'm not sure benchmarks would be a good description given that > directory also contains perf tests that are written to test specific > feature like line layout and DOM bindings.
Those are still benchmarks (albeit microbenchmarks). But I think it would be OK to still call it "PerformanceTests", since unqualified "Tests" connotes functional tests. But "benchmark" and "performance test" are basically synonyms. > > I find it much nicer to have a separate test directory under which the > source code structure is mirrored such as UnitTests/WTFTests/, > UnitTests/WebCoreTests/, etc... Having UnitTests and APITests directories at top level might be better than having them under Tools/TestWebKitAPI/Tests. >> If we did add any special directories to Tests with different semantics, >> they could just be special directories that are peers to the others, much >> like the http/ directory. >> >> What are now called LayoutTests have the distinction (along with >> PerformanceTests) of being tests that can cover things up and down the >> stack. Most other tests could be assigned to one of the subdirectories of >> Source. > > This is why I think IntegrationTests or FunctionalTests most > accurately describe these tests. IntegrationTests doesn't distinguish them from performance tests, or API tests. And most test integration only incidentally. FunctionalTests doesn't distinguish them from any of the other kinds of tests besides performance tests. I think just plain Tests is better than calling out a characteristic that isn't actually unique. It's by far the most common type of test we have, so it's ok for it to be the unmarked category. I also think LayoutTests is ok; it's not totally accurate but it's a historical name that most people understand at this point. I think the only names that are both accurate and unique are likely to be bad for autocomplete (WebTests, WebContentTests, etc). Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
