How about something like initTest? Gregg Wonderly
On Dec 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 December 2012 03:24, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: >> Presently most tests have a lot of shared mutable state. >> >> This isn't helped by the setup(QAConfig) mutator method in the Test >> interface appended. >> >> An alternative might be: >> >> public Test setup(QAConfig config) throws Exception; >> >> This would allow the test to return another Test object, fully constructed >> with immutable state. >> >> It would also allow the test to create an object that can run several other >> Test objects, rather than relying on inheritance. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> > > Reasonable IMO, I'd observe what we've got now is a factory method > which kinda doesn't jibe with the original intentions behind the Test > interface. The Test object has already been constructed in order for > setup to be called. > > Tricky as making more than basic changes will cause much work although > I think that's the way this is going to go anyway. I'm somewhat > tempted to say something radical like "let's just move this stuf over > to junit" but for now how about we come up with a better name than > setup that fits the intention better? > > I've only got crap names off the top of my head to suggest like > "construct" or "build"...
