Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29427
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 66.249.92.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=sdCzRLiGAKomYfWApgJiZ0BtTJQVpU3ro3lCv+v9iXpe/UvlCvhNi1CEnw5R8VLlXUHWF19bVNvDLnrJ6aAl2NKOcdM03jOeIDNKs8tfEcD8H0F7voMqfNyjTnZ/U1riJOO2g5C+D6zYygwgwQzYSYYWDMDaqmd42ytgB8s6LQA=
Message-ID: <46496335.5050403@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:37:25 +0100
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>,  antony@zend.com, 
 kraghuba@in.ibm.com
CC:  internals@lists.php.net
References: <464891C7.3040806@googlemail.com> <862412914.20070514193633@marcus-boerger.de>
In-Reply-To: <862412914.20070514193633@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Tests - and a question
From: zoe.slattery@googlemail.com (Zoe Slattery)

Marcus Boerger wrote:

Hi Marcus & Tony
> Hello Zoe,
>
>   that's pretty fine. Instead of _[bveo][0-9]?.phpt you could do
> _(basic|variation|error|object)[0-9]{3}.phpt. Which is a tad bit better.
> However those are just filenames helping you to find the correct test
> file while developing. For that reason we didn not do so much about
> generating those files. We Only made it briefly and suggested a three
> digit numbering scheme. After all th ename in --TEST.. is the important
> thing.
>   
Thanks for the responses - you have both made the same point that it's 
the --TEST-- section that should really give a descriptive title. Marcus 
- I like your suggestion of  basic|variation etc  better than our 
current b|v etc scheme. Raghu - are you OK to switch to longer test case 
names?

I think the test names are important to some degree - if you are trying 
to look for a testcase for a particular function it is easier to look at 
file names than to have to grep for the function name in a test title. 
Is there a mapping between the functions listed in the functional ref 
and their test cases? This kind of thing would be useful to us so I was 
thinking I'd write one. It's probably lazy of me :-)  but I'd just like 
to click on a function name and go straight to a list of existing test 
cases.

You also both made the same point that shorter tests are better and I 
think we can improve here - although we have been making an effort to 
make the output readable.

> Thanks for the effort into test writing!!!
>
> best regards
> marcus
>   
> Monday, May 14, 2007, 6:43:51 PM, you wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi all
>>     
>
>   
>> We added a few tests for array, string and variable handling functions 
>> at the weekend. As always - any feedback will be welcome.
>>     
>
>   
>> One thing we had some difficulty with was keeping the test output small 
>> enough to be easily read. We chose to divide up tests like this:
>>     
>
>   
>>    test_name_b.phpt    b=basic function
>>    test_name_v.phpt    v=variation
>>    test_name_e.phpt    e=error cases
>>    test_name_o.phpt    o=object specific
>>     
>
>   
>> This may not be the right scheme and I'm happy to change it if anyone 
>> has better suggestions, although it is useful to seperate out the error 
>> case tests because quite a lot of the differences between php5 and php6 
>> seem to be in the exact form of the error message. Using this doesn't 
>> completely solve the problem anyway - I think some of the "v" tests will 
>> will end up being test_name_v1, test_name_v2 etc.
>>     
>
>
>   
>> Thanks, Zoe
>> IBM UK
>>     
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>  Marcus
>
>
>