Policy proposal: don't add tests with names that only include bug numbers and no description

Gijs Kruitbosch 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
108

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 
themselves.

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?

~ Gijs



More information about the firefox-dev mailing list