Re: Potential adoption of run-tests.php replacement

Hi! On 1/31/18 2:50 AM, Nazar Mokrynskyi wrote: > The idea is to make filenames more descriptive and sufficient for > displaying in test results. Descriptive - sure, that'd be great, why not. Sufficient - won't happen. Filenames are not meant to describe complex things, are not suitable for it and we should not try to put it there. It just won't work. > This doesn't prevent or discourage anyone from including description in test file itself when more details need to be included. Thus, the necessity of supporting --TEST--. > Moreover, all of the characters from mentioned title are allowed for > use in file name (at least on Linux) and it would be much more useful > to see them instead of 001.phpt or bug-1234.phpt. Yes, but I do not want to have files with such names. And neither, I expect, do our users - weird filenames are hard to work with, break some common tools and require extraordinary care to handle them properly. To illustrate, right now git (tool that is behind Linux kernel, which is behind pretty much everything on the Internet) can't properly process some of our test filenames. We don't need more trouble in this department. We certainly don't need to force people to name their files "Test whether foo(bar($baz)) crashes if it's called more than twice (bug #1234).phpt" - that would be a nightmare to work with. We should not be using filenames for things they weren't meant to be used for. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com