From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Famulla-Conrad Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:03:49 +0200 Subject: [LTP] Rename tst_test_* to tst_require_* In-Reply-To: <20191011100604.GA11441@dell5510> References: <20191011090737.17997-1-lkml@jv-coder.de> <20191011100604.GA11441@dell5510> Message-ID: <1570799029.4238.15.camel@suse.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 12:06 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > Hi, > > Cc: Li and Clemens > > > these patches rename tst_test_* to tst_require_*, to better > > describe > > their use. There is also tst_require_root, that has the same > > behavior: It also calls tst_brk in case of a failing requirement. > > You can also get this patch from the following repo: > > https://github.com/MofX/ltp/commits/rename_tst_test-tst_require > > sorry for not thinking first, I wonder if we want to sync > tst_test_* (function name) vs $TST_NEEDS_* (test API variable name), > e.g.: tst_require_drivers $TST_NEEDS_DRIVERS I fully agree with Petr that we must be consistent in naming between variable- and function-name. > > i.e. either of these: > s/tst_test_/tst_needs_/ > s/TST_NEEDS_/TST_REQUIRE_/ > > I consider *require* as more descriptive than *needs*, > but changing to *require* would require more work :). If we use needs or require ? Hard question - when I search for synonyms from one or the other, I don't see a big different. Without looking on the impact, require sounds also more descriptive. thx, Clemens