consistent naming for tests

[Kevin Rushforth]

I generally like descriptive names for test methods (and classes) rather 
than encoding the bug ID in the name. A comment with the bug ID is very 
helpful, and I would support making that a best practice. If the purpose 
of a test is non-obvious, a comment explaining it is a good idea.

-- Kevin

On 7/9/2024 2:33 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> An interesting question from John Hendrikx 
> (https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1283/#discussion_r1637684395) 
> probably needs some general discussion on this list.
> Afaik, we don't have guidelines for how to name tests (in 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#coding-style-and-testing-guidelines)
>
> In the different test files we have, I see different patterns:
> * in some cases, tests are always prefixed with `test` (e.g. `testFoo()`)
> * in some cases, tests have a concise but somehow meaningful name 
> (e.g. `testScrollBarStaysVisible`)
> * in some cases, tests refer to JBS issues (e.g. testJDK8309935)
> * in some cases, the test is explained in comments.
>
> I think it would be good to have some consistency going forward. (I'm 
> not advocating we need to rename existing tests!)
> I don't have a strong preference myself, but I think the link to the 
> JBS issue that triggered the creation of a specific test is always 
> good to have. I am also very ok with comments, but I learned not 
> everyone likes that.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Johan