Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2009-08-11 08:50 skrev Dave Korn:
>> Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>>> I think the new file tests/win32.at has a too generic name. And what if
>>> some non-win32 platform needs this? I think the test should be named
>>> tests/bindir.at (or inst-bindir.at) since that is what is tested.
>>
>> How about pe-dll.at?
>
> That is also very wide and as bad as win32.at, if you ask me. Many tests
> would belong under that name. Why do you feel the need to qualify the
> name of the test with some platform marker?
>
> You are testing if the new bindir option works as intended, I think
> that should be where you are coming from when naming the test.
Well, the bindir option exists only to support PE DLLs, which have special
installation needs, and I thought I'd make the name slightly generic because I
figured future DLL-related tests could go there too. So Win32 is definitely too
narrow, but I think pe-dll is about right. Unless that is it's not worth naming
it with an eye to future expansion because there's no concern about
proliferation of .at files and a policy of trying to have lots of small
single-purpose test files rather than big collective ones, in which case how
about pe-dll-inst-bindir.at? ;-)
cheers,
DaveK
