Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added delegates for modifying the JUnit testcase classname and name #186

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

michaelwestbrook
Copy link

No description provided.

@michaelwestbrook
Copy link
Author

Just checking in on this PR. Any chance of getting this in?

@putermancer
Copy link
Collaborator

Did you review and consider my comments from a few months back? I’m hesitant to add another way of modifying something that’s already exposed for user control. Am I missing something? I admit to not having read the code changes since 4 months ago when I made some comments, and I don’t see that those were responded to.

@michaelwestbrook
Copy link
Author

Hmm, I'm not sure what comments you are referring to. Where were they made?

@@ -195,6 +197,12 @@
if(options.systemOut && typeof options.systemOut !== "function") {
throw new Error('option "systemOut" must be a function');
}
if (options.modifyClassName && typeof options.modifyClassName !== "function") {
throw new Error('option "modifyClassName" must be a function');
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does modifyClassName provide that isn't already available through modifySuiteName? The primary difference appears to be that modifySuiteName receives the suite as input, whereas modifyClassName receives the spec—is that the important distinction? It gives me pause to have two separate options which both are ultimately meant for modifying the classname property in the XML document, but providing one of the options prevents the other from being useful.

Since modifySuiteName is already available and is used to modify the classname property—it is called from within getFullyQualifiedSuiteName—I'd prefer a solution that doesn't introduce new ways of modifying the same property. If you need the spec available to your function, I'd propose to change the interface of modifySuiteName to also receive the spec itself as the second parameter, thus retaining backwards compatibility but presumably also giving you what you're looking for with this new option.

@putermancer
Copy link
Collaborator

I tried to use the GitHub pull request review feature, which maybe I didn't utilize correctly... it looks like it might have just posted the comments now, because I never pressed a "submit" button or something in the past. In case it didn't show up for you, I've attached a picture of the comments here too.

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants