Hi Marcus, Apologies for delay response.
I would to you to recall the discussion where we did discuss and debated the file naming convention that is currently being used. The current naming convention gives more meaningful name than the one suggested with respect to the code that is present in the test file. If i remember correctly you suggested that we use the expanded name [basic|variation|error|object] instead of short names [b|v|e|o]. I believe, the current naming convention is more suited than using the one you recently suggested, which is very much similar to those we used in the past. Zoe, Would you like to add more to this ? with regards, Raghubansh On 10/10/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Raghubansh, > > Monday, October 8, 2007, 2:55:11 PM, you wrote: > > > Hi Marcus, > >> maybe safe a few keystrokes and go with the suggested *_001 instead or > >>*_variation1 style. > > Did you mean that we name the testcases without indicating > *variation<count> > > or you mean, we should name the testcases *variation_001.phpt rather > than * > > variation1.phpt ? > > More or less the latter (name_001.phpt instead of name_variation1.phpt), > as > it is shorter :-) > > marcus > > -- with Regards, Raghubansh
