[vtk-developers] Enable verdict on coverage build

Marcus D. Hanwell marcus.hanwell at kitware.com
Sat Aug 21 14:34:03 EDT 2010


On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, David Doria
<daviddoria+vtk at gmail.com<daviddoria%2Bvtk at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> There is no convention. For the wiki examples we chose a convention.
>>
>
> Can I suggest we agree upon and adopt a convention moving forward? We can
> go back and "correct" existing tests as we have time. It seems reasonable to
> have a
>
> TestClassName.cxx (without the vtk- prefix) for every concrete class.
>

I have followed this convention in the tests I have added, but in many ways
the "Test" seems redundant. The big plus is that in my editor of choice (Qt
Creator) I am able to type "TestS" and have every test starting with S
listed, but to run a test I have to type,

./bin/ChartsCxxTests TestScientificPlot -I

>
> (e.g vtkPoints -> TestPoints.cxx)
>
> I'm not sure how to handle abstract class tests.
>
> I doubt the one-to-one mapping of test names to classes will ever be the
case. Some classes are very amenable to this, others are not. I agree that
it would be good to establish a standard, and stick to it. Now would be a
great time to get something set, and do it. I have been working with Bill a
little to migrate some tests to use the testing interactor machinery,
finding issues and seeing what we can do there too.

Marcus
--
Marcus D. Hanwell, Ph.D.
R&D Engineer, Kitware Inc.
(518) 881-4937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20100821/4abf1ca9/attachment.html>


More information about the vtk-developers mailing list