On 04/05/2013 08:28 AM, Jorge Costa wrote:
> In
> sonar-cxx-plugin/src/test/java/org/sonar/plugins/cxx/xunit/CxxXunitSensorTest.java:
>
>> +    // case 2:
>> +    // the testcase file resides: in a subdirectory
>> +    // the testcase file contains: a couple of classes
>> +    // the report mentions: the class name
>> +    assertEquals(sensor.getFilePath("TestClass2"), new File(baseDir, "tests1/subdir/Test2.cc").getPath());
>> +
>> +    // case 3:
>> +    // the testcase file resides: in second directory
>> +    // the testcase file contains: the class in a namespace
>> +    // the report mentions: the class name
>> +    assertEquals(sensor.getFilePath("TestClass3"), new File(baseDir, "tests2/Test3.cc").getPath());
>> +
>> +    // case 4:
>> +    // the testcase file resides: somewhere
>> +    // the testcase file contains: the class is implemented via a header and impl. file
>> +    // the report mentions: the class name
>
> I think its a good practice to name the tests according to the
> functionality their are testing. Using your example, i would do 2 test
> classes one per platform. Either way, if mapping per method instead it
> will probably solve this issue

I would too, probably. But thats a matter of style, ultimately. And we 
should not enforce a particular style, methinks. Rather the plugin 
should try to behave reasonably in all cases (without introducing too 
much logic, of course).

> >
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/SonarCommunity/sonar-cxx/pull/22/files#r3668595>.
>