Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

'ceylon test my.module' could test 'test.my.module' if 'my.module' isn’t a test module #70

Open
lucaswerkmeister opened this issue Aug 7, 2014 · 4 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member

The conventional name for my.module’s test module is test.my.module, which means that (unless you’re using e. g. ant) you’ll typically test with ceylon test test.my.module. That double test feels redundant; perhaps ceylon test my.module could prepend test. automatically if my.module isn’t a test module (doesn’t shared import ceylon.test)?

(Feature request, not for 1.1.)

@quintesse quintesse added this to the 1.2 milestone Aug 28, 2014
@quintesse
Copy link
Member

Is certainly an option, although maybe I'd go for:

  1. if the name does not start with test. add that and try it
  2. if it doesn't exist try the original name

Maybe that way we can better "promote" the use of the name test.* for test modules. (if that's what we want of course)

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member Author

That would mean that if test.my.module exists, I can never ever test my.module. I can’t really imagine why I would want to do that, but still, it sounds a tad scary to me. (Perhaps I’d want to have some small temporary test, and would put that into my.module so I can run it individually, or so it has access to unshared members? Dunno.)

@quintesse
Copy link
Member

Hmm true.
Thing is I don't like it too much when code changes might suddenly change the way existing scripts might run. You add import ceylon.test and suddenly some kind of test script you didn't even know about starts to fail.
You might have to tell people to never use these "user friendly tricks" in scripts.

@lucaswerkmeister
Copy link
Member Author

Good point, that would make this feature kind of useless.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants