[Cppunit-devel] toString() v.s. getName()

[Steve M. R. <ste...@vi...>]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:42:04AM +0200, Baptiste Lepilleur wrote:

[ ... while describing the core classes' functionality ... ]

> std::string toString () const:
>   - My best guess would be describes the test. In Java, and Michael
> Feather's original version there is no getName() method, and the toString()
> has the role of the getName() method.
> 
> std::string getName () const:
>   - Identify the test. The returned name should as unique as possible to
> identify the test (that why the TestCase name is included by the
> TestSuiteBuilder). TestRunners rely on that name to run a specified test (or
> suite). Having a name that identify the test without ambiguity help reading
> the failures report (you don't have to bother with the filename).
> 
> Conclusion: ditch either toString() or getName(). I find that getName() as a
> more intention revealing name ;-)

I agree with your conclusion.  And I volunteer to do it (remove toString).

My plan of attack is as follows:

1. Remove all use of toString() in the library.
2. Document toString() as deprecated in all classes that define it.
3. Replace all toString() implementations with "return getName()".
4. After a respectable number of public releases have been made,
   remove all toString() methods.

Optionally, we could replace toString() methods with

	toString() {
		std::cerr << "Replace toString() with getName()." << endl;
		return getName();
	}

... or would that be too obnoxious?  ;-)

Comments?

-Steve


-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants