I have encountered what Sebb mentions more than once, I do like the "test" prefix to make it obvious what is and is not intended to be a test. Same reason I like to make test methods public: clear intent. I know Junit 5 proposes to change these conventions, the benefit do not outweigh the convention we use in Commons today for me.
Gary On Thu, Feb 17, 2022, 07:03 sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 01:16, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> > 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: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
