From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:28:14 +0200 Subject: [LTP] Rename tst_test_* to tst_require_* In-Reply-To: <20191011140015.GA27627@dell5510> References: <20191011090737.17997-1-lkml@jv-coder.de> <20191011100604.GA11441@dell5510> <1570799029.4238.15.camel@suse.de> <20191011131041.GA18363@rei> <20191011140015.GA27627@dell5510> Message-ID: <20191024122814.GC27782@rei.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > > 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. > > > There is about thousand of uses of *NEEDS_FOO and *needs_foo in the new > > library tests, so renaming to tst_needs_foo would be the least painful. > +1. > > Sorry for starting such a big discussion just about API naming. > I care about these things, because good docs and consistent API are less > important than good quality code, but helps new users. > > Thank you for all your input, I agree with points other raised, but getting it > right would be to intrusive change (touching every test is a bit too much). I would like to end the bikeshedding now and also get the tests fixed so here is the proposal. If anyone wants to send a patch that unifies the API on tst_needs_* please do so. If no one starts at least working on that in a week or two, let's merge this patchset. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz