> On May 10, 2017, at 2:51 AM, Konstantin Tokarev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 10.05.2017, 12:42, "Ryosuke Niwa" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>On Wed, May > 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Ryosuke Niwa < > <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> IntegrationTests doesn't distinguish them from performance tests, or API >>>> tests. And most test integration only incidentally. FunctionalTests >>>> doesn't >>>> distinguish them from any of the other kinds of tests besides performance >>>> tests. >>>> I think just plain Tests is better than calling out a characteristic that >>>> isn't actually unique. It's by far the most common type of test we have, >>>> so >>>> it's ok for it to be the unmarked category. >>> The problem with Tests is that it competes with Tools. >>> (Renaming Tools is a lot harder not to mention it's a pretty >>> descriptive name already). >>> How about CorrectnessTests or CoreTests then? >> I guess another name along this line would be RegressionTests. > >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> IntegrationTests doesn't distinguish them from performance tests, or API >>>> tests. And most test integration only incidentally. FunctionalTests >>>> doesn't >>>> distinguish them from any of the other kinds of tests besides performance >>>> tests. >>>> >>>> I think just plain Tests is better than calling out a characteristic that >>>> isn't actually unique. It's by far the most common type of test we have, >>>> so >>>> it's ok for it to be the unmarked category. >>> >>> The problem with Tests is that it competes with Tools. >>> (Renaming Tools is a lot harder not to mention it's a pretty >>> descriptive name already).
It has a two-letter disambiguation at least, which is better than what you get for WebCore / WebKit / WebKit2. >>> >>> How about CorrectnessTests or CoreTests then? >> >> I guess another name along this line would be RegressionTests. Most of our other tests are also regression tests. > > Why not just keep historical name, so nobody is confused what is what? CoreTests is brief and descriptive IMO. But I agree that LayoutTests is ok, even though it's not quite accurate any more. > >> >>>> I think the only names that are both accurate and unique are likely to be >>>> bad for autocomplete (WebTests, WebContentTests, etc). >>> >>> I guess we can also move WebKit.xcworkspace into Source, and rename >>> WebKitLibraries to SystemInterfaceLibraries (and maybe move into >>> Source), and then move Websites into Tools. >>> >>> - R. Niwa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> > > -- > Regards, > Konstantin
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
