Improve naming conventions for test methods. #44
Labels
good first issue
Good for newcomers
help wanted
Extra attention is needed
refactor
Something about the code could be better
The currently defined test methods don't clearly articulate what is actually being tested, which is critical given the indirect and sometimes rather obscure naming of the methods utilized to achieve terse code to levels that are competitive with more golf-friendly languages. Take the tests for the methods for generating ranges for example:
For starters, this fully-underscored naming convention needlessly extends the name and adds little to no value. That can be simplified to separating the method, condition, and result; for example, the method above could be simplified to:
Additionally, the
GR
here isn't as useful as it could be from a maintenance perspective. Instead, let's expand the name to its more legible representationGenerateRange
. While it doesn't match the actual method being tested, it helps developers maintaining the project better understand the code they're working with:This issue covers the correction of the test methods defined in:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: