On 10/9/13 3:12 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 20:55, Brent Christian wrote:
>>
I've beefed up the test case
>
Thanks for the update and expanding the test. I skimmed over the new
test cases and they looks good.
Thanks.
> There are a few commented out cases and
it's not clear why this also.
Ooops - I was confirming the new tests work using 5- and 3- element
collections. I'll take the commented lines back out.
Also a minor observation is that the
method names are a bit inconsistent with the other method names in the
test, they might be something to look at before pushing.
Anything in particular?
Other than clear(), I don't see other methods that take a collection and
make it ready for testing. Most collections are populated inline, but
my tests need a Map setup the exact same way many times, so I added
prep[Map|Set]ForDescItrTests().
A lot of "helper" test methods are named "checkXYZ", and that's how I
named mine.
The new tests check pretty specific behaviors, and I chose pretty
descriptive names. I guess most existing method names are fully written
out rather than abbreviated (e.g. checkNavigableMapKeys()), which I
generally like to do, but mine got *really* long. I abbreviated the
names to keep things under 80 characters without having to break
everything onto multiple lines.
I think this is ready for someone to push (I can send a changeset),
unless more should be done with the method names in the test case.
Thanks,
-Brent
