[vtk-developers] Testing guidelines

[David Doria]

>
>
> 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 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


(I started a new thread since the old title (about verdict) wouldn't
probably interest many people).

Hi all,

I started a page here:
http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/TestingGuidelines

(and linked to it from
http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/VTK/Developers_Corner#Developers_Corner )

Please add any thoughts and ideas about testing and coverage to that page. I
think by having a set of more systematic testing guidelines we will be able
to keep much more of the code covered. I've also started a list of questions
(about deprecated classes, coverage target, etc) that should be addressed.

Thanks,

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20100821/e5a83130/attachment.html>