i agree too :) i believe another benefit of naming tests *Test.java is that Junit implicitly recognizes these classes as unit tests which makes some administrative things easier (like implicit test suites and nicer looking junit reports :).
On Dec 17, 2007 12:14 PM, Adam Monsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 21:04 -0500, Van Mittal-Henkle wrote: > [...] > > I'll put forward the suggestion of following the convention > > <classname>Test for test class names. This convention should make > > code completion more convenient than Test<classname>. So the proposal > > is that when someone writes the class MyClass then they would write > > MyClassTest to go along with it.. > > > > If anyone else in the community has comments one way or another > > regarding this, please chime in. After others have had a chance to > > comment, then if we're in agreement, we can put this on our list of > > refactoring to do. > [...] > > I agree that we should use that convention. > > -- > Adam Monsen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services > for just about anything Open Source. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace >
------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
