+1 for comments, links to the JS tickets, and descriptive names. Speaking of the test names, I wanted to bring up an issue that I've encountered recently which concerns the use of @Nested - https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334497
Two test files consistently generate an error in Eclipse - ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest - LazyObjectBindingTest I admit I have a weird setup (EncFS on Linux Mint running on MacBook Pro), and it only manifests itself in Eclipse and not in the gradle build - perhaps Eclipse actually verifies the removal of files? Anyway, a suggestion - if you use @Nested, please keep the class names short. Thank you -andy From: openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-r...@openjdk.org> on behalf of Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 02:33 To: openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org> Subject: consistent naming for tests Hi, An interesting question from John Hendrikx (https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1283/#discussion_r1637684395) probably needs some general discussion on this list. Afaik, we don't have guidelines for how to name tests (in https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#coding-style-and-testing-guidelines) In the different test files we have, I see different patterns: * in some cases, tests are always prefixed with `test` (e.g. `testFoo()`) * in some cases, tests have a concise but somehow meaningful name (e.g. `testScrollBarStaysVisible`) * in some cases, tests refer to JBS issues (e.g. testJDK8309935) * in some cases, the test is explained in comments. I think it would be good to have some consistency going forward. (I'm not advocating we need to rename existing tests!) I don't have a strong preference myself, but I think the link to the JBS issue that triggered the creation of a specific test is always good to have. I am also very ok with comments, but I learned not everyone likes that. Thoughts? - Johan
