On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 01:16, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes and no.
Apart from it being unnecessary to change the name, it can be helpful
to distinguish top-level test methods from helper methods.
Makes it easier to check if there is a missing (or spurious) annotation.
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
> > > [...]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
