I understand conservatism and inertia of such changes. But thus we are sticking to arrogance and shortsightedness of previous engineers who worked on this project, while trying to make it better. My point is - without some legacy cleaning and approaches review it becomes impossible to introduce any meaningful improvements to the project we are so hardly working on.
> On 15 Mar 2018, at 19:45, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it is better to keep existing naming because Igniters are used to > it. > > Moreover a lot of issues use suite name as reference on where test is > located. So I prefer existing naming. > > чт, 15 мар. 2018 г. в 19:43, vveider <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi, Igniters! >> >> >> Took the liberty to introduce minor refactoring into test build names in >> our >> (now) main test project Ignite Tests 2.4+ (Java 8) [1] >> Changes affected the numeration of tests with common name, i.e >> Ignite Basic => Ignite Basic [I] >> Ignite Basic 2 => Ignite Basic [II] >> And so on. >> My main motivation is common design for the test project, including naming >> policy. It will help maintain this project in future with much less >> efforts. >> >> I earnestly encourage community to be a little bit patient while works on >> test improvements are held and counting on your support. >> >> As always - open to questions and constructive criticism. >> >> >> [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8 >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >>
