Re: Test labels

I don't really agree that "comment" implies "not really worth doing". I 
think
those inclined to not put a name/comment/label on their test will not 
do it
whatever we end up calling it. IMO the only way to get people to do it 
would
be to make it required, and I don't think that is a good idea.

I like "label", but to me that also implies a (somewhat-less-than-name) 
unique identifier.

I also like H. Merjin's suggestions of "tag", however it might be 
confusing to the more
web-inclinded. (Tag as in shirt-tag, not as in HTML-tag)

Personally I use them like comments, so that makes the most sense to me.

Steve

On Dec 6, 2004, at 11:28 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
> I think even better than
>
>   ok( $expr, "name" );
>
> or
>
>   ok( $expr, "comment" );
>
> is
>
>   ok( $expr, "label" );
>
> RJBS points out that "comment" implies "not really worth doing",
> and I still don't like "name" because it implies (to me) a unique 
> identifier.
> We also talked about "description", but "description" is just soooo
> overloaded.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> xoxo,
> Andy
>
> -- 
> Andy Lester => andy@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
>

• Test labels by Andy Lester
• Re: Test labels by Mark Stosberg
• Re: Test label - contents by Tim Bunce
• Re: Test label - contents by Ovid
• Re: Test label - contents by Andy Lester
• Re: Test label - contents by Geoffrey Young
• Re: Test labels by Stevan Little
• Re: Test labels by Steve Peters
• Re: Test labels by H.Merijn Brand