Policy proposal: don't add tests with names that only include bug numbers and no description
gijskruitbosch at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 16:23:10 UTC 2013
TL;DR: I'd like to propose having a policy to require new tests (or
updates to existing tests) to have descriptive file names - which means
more than just a bug number.
Longer explanation: some of us were talking on IRC about how we have
lots of tests that have filenames that only have a bug number as useful
information. For example:
$ ls -1 browser/base/content/test/ | grep 'browser_bug[0-9]*.js' | wc -l
Of course, bug numbers are useful because then we can read descriptions
on bugzilla. But TBPL, my terminal window, and the MXR directory
listings are not bugzilla.
In other word, this makes it harder to know what tests are testing, and
to split them up into directories that make topical sense. Furthermore,
if a test breaks, it's not immediately obvious whether the breakage is
topical to that test, the fault of that test itself or some other test
that ran earlier, and if it's some other test: which tests are or are
not likely suspects for having broken assumptions of tests running after
Gavin suggested we could just have a policy to require test filenames to
be more than just bug numbers. I concur. How do others feel about this?
More information about the firefox-dev