On 31 January 2018 at 10:50, Nazar Mokrynskyi <na...@mokrynskyi.com> wrote:
> The idea is to make filenames more descriptive and sufficient for > displaying in test results. This doesn't prevent or discourage anyone from > including description in test file itself when more details need to be > included. > Would you propose to apply a bulk rename of all .phpt files currently in the tree to use their TEST blocks as filenames, or a manual review of each test? If automating, how would you handle tests whose descriptions are not unique within a directory? If manual, what kind of naming scheme would you propose? > Moreover, all of the characters from mentioned title are allowed for use > in file name (at least on Linux) and it would be much more useful to see > them instead of 001.phpt or bug-1234.phpt. While most characters are allowed in names, some can be irritating to work with - test descriptions are likely to include things like ", $, * etc which have to be escaped carefully whenever manipulating the files. Different filesystems and environments may not handle the same set of characters, so care would need to be taken to ensure portability of the test suite. It seems like a tool which lists the file name and description for each .phpt file in a directory would bring most of the advantages of such a mass renaming without the problems. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
