Geometry Boost List: Re: [geometry] Proposal: grouping tests according to the directory/logical structure

Subject: Re: [geometry] Proposal: grouping tests according to the directory/logical structure
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-27 15:57:00

Hi Adam,

Adam Wulkiewicz schreef op 27-5-2015 om 19:39:
>
> We have many tests at Geometry in a single matrix:
> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/geometry.html
> For me it is sometimes hard to quickly find the test I'm looking for.
>
> I propose to group the tests the same way how they're grouped in the 
> directories structure by naming them accordingly. Each test name would 
> contain:
> 1. a name (or names) of a logical part of the library taken from the 
> containing directory (algorithms, strategies, core, etc.)
> 2. a name of the tested algorithm, class, concept (within, box, etc.)
> 3. a name of test variant (e.g. areal_areal or multi)
>
> Furthermore I propose to keep the file and directories structure short 
> (i.e. in many cases the same as they are now) and to specify the names 
> in Jamfiles.
> This can be done by setting the target-name in 
> run/compile/compile-fail rules, as mentioned here:
> http://www.boost.org/build/doc/html/bbv2/builtins/testing.html
>
> The target-name would be created from the directory name, 
> algorithm/concept name and test variant name separated by underscore, 
> e.g.:
> algorithms/area_multi.cpp  ->  algorithms_area_multi
> algorithms/buffer/buffer_point.cpp  ->  algorithms_buffer_point
> algorithms/distance/distance.cpp  ->  algorithms_distance
> algorithms/relational_operations/relate/relate_areal_areal.cpp ->  
> algorithms_relate_areal_areal
> core/access.cpp  ->  core_access
> geometries/box.cpp  ->  geometries_box
> strategies/andoyer.cpp  ->  strategies_andoyer
> util/range.cpp  ->  util_range
> etc.
>
> I also propose to rename some of the files to reflect the new naming 
> convention, i.e. to always keep test variant identifier at the end (as 
> on the list above), e.g.:
> multi_area.cpp  ->  area_multi.cpp
> point_buffer.cpp  ->  buffer_point.cpp
> etc.

Thanks for the proposal. I agree with this, both the target-names and 
the renaming of some of the files.
If there are no objections, I can take care for the buffer part (as it 
needs also the same renaming in my non-committed project files)

>
> Alternatively, sometimes the name of an algorithm could also be 
> ommited in a file name if it was redundant and clear enough, e.g.:
> buffer/point_buffer.cpp  ->  buffer/point.cpp
> however personally I'd prefer keeping the redundant algorithm name. At 
> least for now. And if we agreed that it should be done this way, do it 
> in the future (as the next step) consistently for all of the tests. 

OK for me.

Regards, Barend