[Nfd-dev] UnitTesting naming convention: test suite nameconflicts with class name

[Davide Pesavento]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Junxiao Shi
<shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Dear folks
>
>
>
> I disagree with applying rule 2.6 to this case. It would create a third
> convention that is inconsistent with the first two.
>
> 20150901 conference call decides that any new unit test naming convention is
> required on new test suites only, which means the inconsistency will be
> there forever.

Why forever? What prevents you from mass renaming the current test
suites to lowercase?

>
>
>
> My proposal below is an extension of the current convention.
>
> Any test suite that conforms to the current convention also conforms to my
> proposal, which ensures only two conventions exist.
>
>
>
> Yours, Junxiao
>
>
>
>
> From: Davide Pesavento
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 08:04
> To: Junxiao Shi
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Nfd-dev] UnitTesting naming convention: test suite
> nameconflicts with class name
>
>
>
>
>
> If I remember correctly BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE declares a namespace,
>
> not a class. According to rule 2.6, namespace names should start with
>
> a lowercase letter. In any case, we should avoid name clashes even
>
> between classes and namespaces.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Junxiao Shi
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 07:01
> To:
> Subject: UnitTesting naming convention: test suite name conflicts with
> classname
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear folks
>
>
>
> Since 20150901 we have adopted a new naming conventions for unit test
> suites: http://redmine.named-data.net/projects/nfd/wiki/UnitTesting/6
>
> For example, a test suite for ndn::util::Signal should be named:
> Util/TestSignal.
>
>
>
> Under this rule, a test suite for ndn::security::pib::Pib should be named:
> Security/Pib/TestPib.
>
> In Boost.Test, this is written as:
>
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Security)
>
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Pib)
>
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(TestPib)
>
>
>
> Each of these BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE macros would declare a class named after
> the test suite name.
>
> This causes the identifier “Pib” ambiguous: it refers to not only the class
> under test (ndn::security::pib::Pib), but also the second level test suite.
>
>
>
> Yingdi gave two proposals:
>
> 1.       name the test suite as Security/PibDir/TestPib
>
> 2.       name the test suite as security/pib/TestPib
>
>
>
> My proposal is:
>
> ·         name the test suite as Security/TestPib/TestPib
>
> ·         due to the existence of Pib class, all test suites for
> ndn::security::pib::* should have its second level named “TestPib” rather
> than “Pib”
>
>
>
> My reason is:
>
> ·         Yingdi’s second proposal resolves the name conflict between test
> suite name and class name, but it creates another conflict: “pib” refers to
> both the test suite and the namespace ndn::security::pib.
>
> ·         Although Yingdi’s first proposal prevents the name conflict, it’s
> using two different rules to resolve the conflict: (a) append “Dir” (b)
> prepend “Test”. The purpose for prepending “Test” to the lowest-level test
> suite name is to resolve the name conflict, so we should reuse the same rule
> for resolving all conflicts.
>
> ·         Having “TestPib” on two levels should be fine, because this class
> name is never referred to in the testing code.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours, Junxiao
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfd-dev mailing list
> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev
>