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

Rename runReflectiveTests -> defineReflectiveTests. #4

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 22, 2015

Conversation

scheglov
Copy link
Contributor

@@ -26,13 +26,13 @@ import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';
* method invocation. If method returns [Future] to test some asyncronous
* behavior, then `tearDown` will be invoked in `Future.complete`.
*/
void runReflectiveTests(Type type) {
void defineReflectiveTests(Type type) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know I suggested defineReflectiveTests, but another name to consider would be reflectiveTests. It follows the pattern of the test library, where the methods used to define the entities have are just the name of the entity. Very passive, like group or test. So reflectiveTests would be in keeping with that.

That said, I think defineReflectiveTests or reflectiveTests is an improvement over runReflectiveTests in terms of naming what it does, so whichever you prefer.

@devoncarew
Copy link
Member

lgtm; one more name to consider

scheglov added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2015
Rename runReflectiveTests -> defineReflectiveTests.
@scheglov scheglov merged commit d7e0f5c into master Apr 22, 2015
@scheglov scheglov deleted the rename-to-defineReflectiveTests branch April 22, 2015 19:35
mosuem pushed a commit to dart-lang/tools that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2024
…rename-to-defineReflectiveTests

Rename runReflectiveTests -> defineReflectiveTests.
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