Hi!
We could try to keep all bugs in a "regression" suite. The tests in t/ are
almost historical at this point.
I am all for better test naming!
Cheers,
-Brian
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Patrick Crews <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would say that the naming isn't that bad - as long as we can find
> information *somewhere* in the test. Personally, I've seen too many tests
> that point you clearly to a bug / WL / whatever but still don't provide you
> with any information on *why* things are as they are within the test.
>
> Truth be told, we have bug cases scattered everywhere. A bug contains an
> UPDATE statement, it goes in update.test. Someone else sees it and decides
> it should be in ddl.test, someone else gives it a separate case.
>
> The test-suite allows for a certain amount of free-form organization and I
> think we could lose our minds if we tried to keep things too orderly.
>
> However, as long as the following information is available and the test gets
> run, I think we're good:
> 1) Regression info - bug / bug description
> 2) How the test works - if it is anything tricky at all, please explain what
> we're looking for and how to tell if things have broken - make it as easy as
> possible to determine if the test is really broken.
> 3) The test is named / located somewhere appropriate. We might not want
> DELETE FROM cases in optimizer.test, but as long as the organization makes
> *some* kind of sense, we're still getting the benefits of running the test
> against the server.
>
> One thing we have talked about is having a proper 'regressions' suite, which
> would make sense. It would help us understand what happened and keep things
> organized, but it's on the back-burner at the moment.
>
> Hope that info helps. Mainly just try to be informative - your naming scheme
> will be fine,
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Hartmut Holzgraefe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Right now when looking for tests with "bug" in their name i find
>
> ./tests/t/update_is_truncate_on_temp_bug_lp387627.test
> ./tests/t/parser_bug21114_innodb.test
> ./tests/t/bug_lp611379.test
> ./tests/t/mysql_bug2397.test
> ./tests/t/bug588408.test
>
> so there are tests with just a bug number in their name (so that
> one can only guess by the number of digits whether it is a launchpad
> or bugs.mysql.com bug), some using "lp" or "mysql_bug" as prefix,
> some only mentioning the bug number while others also include a
> short synopsis in the test file name ...
>
> Personally i like the "$synopsis_bug_(lp|mysql)####.test" naming
> approach as seen in "update_is_truncate_on_temp_bug_lp387627.test"
> best (even though it leads to rather long names) so i'm going to
> name the few tests i'm working on right now in a similar way ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
> Post to : [email protected]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
> Post to : [email protected]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
