Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 15:39:59 -0500 From: Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Peter Holm <peter@holm.cc> Subject: Re: My first ATF test Message-ID: <CAFY7cWDEBRJ3mee9c8=T1PnzwWp9uQJD%2ByJWKdepSKMSRzZeQQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2jiJurBky-Qe4Mf-Py8Rp%2BCXM-hBo%2BmcsGA_pc=L-0TsA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140225161129.GA59741@x2.osted.lan> <CAOtMX2hQA8SP7zXsOQHd-kAV7R8ziw12Cfz=nWQbBCaS1hS48g@mail.gmail.com> <20140225183306.GA70295@x2.osted.lan> <CAOtMX2jiJurBky-Qe4Mf-Py8Rp%2BCXM-hBo%2BmcsGA_pc=L-0TsA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > > The atf-c-api(3) man page doesn't recommend one or the other, and its > examples show it both ways. My personal habit is to put the constant > first. It's been ingrained by both googletest and Ruby's test/unit, > which both have a clear policy. Personally, I would say that if > you're editing an existing file, try to keep with its preexisting > style. Otherwise, I don't think it matters. It doesn't matter as you say and keeping consistency is good. However, I've also come to prefer putting the constant first nowadays given that this what pretty much all other testing libraries do. The inconsistencies come from the past. They should be fixed to prefer check(expected,actual).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFY7cWDEBRJ3mee9c8=T1PnzwWp9uQJD%2ByJWKdepSKMSRzZeQQ>