Method protocol nitpick

There are many test methods categorized as "testing". "Testing" means e.g. #isEmpty. "tests" (which is also used for test methods) would be better...

Sean

On 2 June 2012 18:42, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There are many test methods categorized as "testing". "Testing" means e.g.
> #isEmpty. "tests" (which is also used for test methods) would be better...
>
> Sean

I usually put tests in a "testing - foo" category. Tests for #isEmpty
would thus be in "testing - testing". Kind've lame, but it does avoid
conflating behaviour and tests in the same category, while still
allowing categorising of tests.

(It's not universally true, but most categories are -ing words.
"instance creation", "initialize-release" are obvious counterexamples,
but otherwise we have "enumerating", "accessing", "testing", ...)

frank

I would like to recategorise systematically methods.
Would be good to propose some rules and apply automatically.

Stef

On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:

> There are many test methods categorized as "testing". "Testing" means e.g.
> #isEmpty. "tests" (which is also used for test methods) would be better...
>
> Sean
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Method-protocol-nitpick-tp4632925.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

In MS Excel, such functions are grouped under "Information".  
Alternatively standardize a category "UnitTests".

Stéphane Ducasse wrote: