If a test is written as a simple-method it should be names like other files, ie as *Services.xml or *SimpleMethods.xml (an older form, not used much).
-David On Dec 30, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote: > Yes but the definition and implementation of a test need two separate files. > Same is true for a service except the entity-auto feature. > > There is an example btw. > > party/script/org/ofbiz/party/test/PartyTests.xml > party/testdef/PartyTests.xml > > Both of files above reside in different folders in the structure and thus > there purpose is obvious but still it is very useful to identify the purpose > of the file when you do lookup in the editor > > and I think it is far easier to refer a test definition file if we follow the > pattern applied to services. > > Exceptions are always there but I think they have their own advantages if it > helps in making an easier reference to a file in this case or any thing else. > > Vikas > > On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> I was for the tests-*.xml type of file because it was consistent with >> services defintions files names. But I should say that I don't like to have >> dashes and underscores in names at large (should I say that it remains me my >> 1st and only short experience with Cobol 25 years ago ). It would be even >> easier to have camel-cased and an upper-case first letter almost everywhere >> it makes sense (of course keeping uppercase for static var and camel-cased >> and a lower-case first letter for methods, and anyway Sun conventions for >> Java languages). Then you don't have to guess about how to write a name. >> >> So +1 for David's proposition. >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "David E Jones" <d...@me.com> >>> >>> Actually, most XML files in OFBiz these days (with just a few exceptions) >>> follow a patterns like: >>> >>> *Services.xml >>> *Forms.xml >>> *Screens.xml >>> *Data.xml >>> ... etc >>> >>> By that pattern the test files should be *Tests.xml, with the rest of the >>> file camel-cased and an upper-case first letter. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:44 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Why not camel case them like most other files? >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 29, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote: >>>> >>>>> Vikas Mayur wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> The test definition files name is not consistent throughout the project. >>>>>> Some of the files name is all lowercase and others have camel case >>>>>> pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we can follow the pattern used in service definition files. >>>>>> >>>>>> The files under accounting/testdef are >>>>>> >>>>>> accountingtests.xml >>>>>> invoicetests.xml >>>>>> paymenttests.xml >>>>>> fixedassettests.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> and would be (after this change) >>>>>> >>>>>> tests.xml (generic test) >>>>>> tests_invoice.xml (tests specific to invoices) >>>>>> tests_payment.xml (tests specific to payments) >>>>>> tests_fixedasset.xml (tests specific to fixed assets) >>>>>> etc.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Vikas >>>>>> >>>>> + 1 for a naming pattern. The above proposal is fine for me. >>>>> >>>>> Bilgin >>>> >> >> >
