[External] : Re: consistent naming for tests

[Kevin Rushforth]

> If that is in line with what most people want, I can create a PR to 
> add this to the CONTRIBUTING.md file.

All good from my point of view. That would be great, thank you.

-- Kevin


On 7/10/2024 12:25 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
> Thanks all for commenting.
> What I have read so far seems that there is an agreement for this 
> approach:
> * don't prefix tests with `test` anymore
> * use a (somehow) descriptive name
> * add a comment that refers to the JBS issue that this test is dealing 
> with
> * (optional) in case the test or test scenario is complex, add a 
> comment that briefly describes what is being tested.
>
> If that is in line with what most people want, I can create a PR to 
> add this to the CONTRIBUTING.md file.
>
> - Johan
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:36 AM Nir Lisker <nlisker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         * 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`)
>
>
>     Prefixing 'test' was an old convention for testing frameworks. I
>     have been dropping that prefix in my projects since I'm in a test
>     class/package/source folder anyway, and it's not like there're
>     methods in a test class that aren't used for testing. I also use
>     long descriptive names, like
>     'newValueNotSetIfOldValueWasInvalid()' or, alternatively,
>     'doNotSetNewValueIfOldValueWasInvalid()'. John's nesting names are
>     also good when nesting is appropriate.
>
>         * in some cases, tests refer to JBS issues (e.g. testJDK8309935)
>
>         * in some cases, the test is explained in comments. 
>
>
>     I don't like JBS numbers as names, but I like them as links in a
>     comment. I prefer the name of the test and methods to be
>     self-explanatory, like in non-test code, rather than comments.
>     However, sometimes comments are needed because of tricky or
>     non-trivial situations, which is part of what tests are for.
>
>
>     On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 6:30 PM Kevin Rushforth
>     <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>         This might be a combination of Eclipse and eCryptfs. I agree
>         that 143 chars is very short for a max length.
>
>         -- Kevin
>
>
>         On 7/9/2024 8:22 AM, John Hendrikx wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On 09/07/2024 16:52, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>>>
>>>         Two test files consistently generate an error in Eclipse
>>>
>>>         - ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest
>>>         - LazyObjectBindingTest
>>>
>>>         I admit I have a weird setup (EncFS on Linux Mint running on
>>>         MacBook Pro), and it only manifests itself in Eclipse and
>>>         not in the gradle build - perhaps Eclipse actually verifies
>>>         the removal of files?
>>>
>>>         Anyway, a suggestion - if you use @Nested, please keep the
>>>         class names /short/.
>>>
>>         This is not an Eclipse bug as I never encounter such issues. 
>>         143 characters is rather short these days, but I suppose we
>>         could limit the nesting a bit.  Still, I'd look into a way to
>>         alleviate this problem in your setup, sooner or later this is
>>         going to be a problem.
>>
>>         --John
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/attachments/20240710/97038b29/attachment.htm>