Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29429
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.132.250 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=moO/1fQS2FcMie+1LYIbmPkLwQRca7Vw2Cg7y/Zg8y2YcyEHP5h7P7bap9EnQmUSE/nzOgmUXXK0lLbIUEzKYVd4ykOee41SE+hCtCeED9ZLXZZIYxnPvRlzsikvEaVg/pVXdp3aQ6MWzvK+8EFSADIm9u6uzUSR9FZY+QBovRw=
Message-ID: <5e2913440705150052l7bac4028sc3ac26655b38b141@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:22:23 +0530
To: "Zoe Slattery" <zoe.slattery@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, antony@zend.com, kraghuba@in.ibm.com, 
	internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <46496335.5050403@googlemail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_66594_11102126.1179215543507"
References: <464891C7.3040806@googlemail.com>
	 <862412914.20070514193633@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <46496335.5050403@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Tests - and a question
From: softvirus@gmail.com (SoftVirus)

------=_Part_66594_11102126.1179215543507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello Zoe, Marcus &  Tony,

Files names having _(basic|variation|error|object).phpt looks much better.
File names _[0-9]*.phpt does not give much detail about what are the
functions being testing by this testcase until one looks at the --TEST--
section of the file. It would be nice to have the name of the testcase
accomodate name of the functions that are being tested.  For example if
009.phpt is written to test basic functionality of current() and next()
functions, the better file name could be current_next_basic.phpt.

Regards,
Raghubansh, IBM India

On 5/15/07, Zoe Slattery <zoe.slattery@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
with Regards,
Raghubansh

------=_Part_66594_11102126.1179215543507--