I suggest just migrate 1 or 2 tests first, and create a pr, and we discuss it there. Discussing without codes seems hollow.
Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月17日周四 09:16写道: > Hello. > > > [...] > > > > One more practical question: since the tests are not anymore based on the > > methods name and are indicated by annotations now, I've seen tests > without > > this "test" in the beginning. Looks like common practice (including it's > > the way it's presented in the JUnit 5 docs). Since I'll dig into all the > > tests, I can make this change as well. I like this style, because it > looks > > more "clean" to me. What do you think, should I change the methods names > as > > well? > > > > Gary notes the practical reason for not mixing types of changes > but you can certainly start a discussion about changing the > convention. I agree that, in > ---CUT--- > @Test > public void testSomething() { > // ... > } > ---CUT--- > there is one "test" too many. > > Regards, > Gilles > > > > [...] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >