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

[Junxiao Shi]

Dear folks

I’m facing a similar name conflict problem when working on NFD face unit testing.

I attempted to rename FaceUdp test suite to:
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Face)
BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_SUITE(TestUdp, ..)
and then the name “Face” becomes ambiguous: it refers to not only nfd::Face type, but also the test suite.

I feel it’s cumbersome to write “nfd::Face” throughout the test suite.
But I found a trick that resolve the name conflict problem, without changing the test suite naming convention.

The trick is:
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Face)
BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_SUITE(TestUdp, ..)
using nfd::Face;
This using directive indicates that “Face” mentioned within the test suite refers to nfd::Face rather than the test suite.

Yours, Junxiao


From: Yingdi Yu
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:12
To: Junxiao Shi
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Nfd-dev] UnitTesting naming convention: test suite nameconflicts with class name


In my latest patch, I went back to 

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Security)
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Pib)
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(TestPib)

and used the full name of the class “security::Pib” in the test cases to avoid name conflict, I think this could be a general solution, because the name of test suite is alway capitalized, but the namespace is not.

Best Regards,

Yingdi 

On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20150916/88f58865/attachment.html>