blocks|key|1556867|text|任何方法的名称都应该清楚地说明它的作用。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556868|国际海事组织，你的第一个建议有点长，第二个建议信息量不够。此外，在名称中添加"100“可能不是一个好主意，因为这种情况很可能会发生变化。下面是什么：|1556869|public+void+validateUserNameLength()|code-block|syntax|javascript|1556870|如果测试发生更改，则应相应地更新名称。|1556871|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$G|H]]|$1|I|3|J|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|L|$]]

The name of any method should make it clear what it does.

IMO, your first suggestion is a bit long and the second one isn't informative enough. Also it's probably a bad idea to put "100" in the name, as that's very likely to change. What about:

<pre><code>public void validateUserNameLength()
</code></pre>

If the test changes, the name should be updated accordingly.

blocks|key|1772671|text|是的，名称非常重要，特别是当您在控制台或持续集成服务器中运行测试时。杰伊·菲尔兹写了一个post+about+it|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|1772672|此外，在one+assertion+per+test中使用好的测试名称，当测试失败时，您的套件将为您提供很好的报告。|1772673|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/05/testing-value-of-test-names.html|1|http://blog.jayfields.com/2007/06/testing-one-assertion-per-test.html^0|18|D|0|0|4|M|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@$A|Q|B|R|1|S]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@$A|U|B|V|1|W]]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|X|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|C|$L|M]]|N|$5|I|J|K|C|$L|O]]]]

Yes, the names are totally important, specially when you are running the tests in console or continuous integration servers. Jay Fields wrote a <a href="http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/05/testing-value-of-test-names.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">post about it</a>.

Moreover, put good test names with <a href="http://blog.jayfields.com/2007/06/testing-one-assertion-per-test.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one assertion per test</a> and your suite will give you great reports when a test fails.

blocks|key|1772391|text|是。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1772392|+[Test]
+public+void+UsernameValidator_LessThanLengthLimit_ShouldValidate()+{}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1772393|将测试对象放在第一位，测试语句放在第二位，预期结果放在最后。|1772394|这样，您就可以清楚地了解它在做什么，并且可以很容易地按名称进行排序:)|1772395|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|L|$]]

Yes.

<pre><code> [Test]
 public void UsernameValidator_LessThanLengthLimit_ShouldValidate() {}
</code></pre>

Put the test subject first, the test statement next, and the expected result last. 
That way, you get a clear indication of what it is doing, and you can easily sort by name :)

blocks|key|1556936|text|我认为，如果一个人不能为一个测试方法找到一个简洁的好名字，这就是这个测试设计不正确的标志。另外，好的方法名可以帮助你在更短的时间内找出发生了什么。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556937|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

I think if one can not find a good concise name for a test method it's a sign that design of this test is incorrect. Also good method name helps you to find out what happened in less time.

blocks|key|1772469|text|是的，测试名称的全部意义在于，当测试失败时，它会告诉您什么不起作用。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1772470|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Yes, the whole point of the test name is that it tells you what doesn't work when the test fails.

blocks|key|1556782|text|我不会将test需要满足的条件放在名称中，因为条件可能会随着时间的推移而变化。在您的示例中，我建议命名为|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556783|UserNameLengthValidate()|code-block|syntax|javascript|1556784|或|1556785|UserNameLengthTest()|1556786|或者类似的东西来解释测试的作用，但不是假定测试/验证参数。|1556787|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|D|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|M|3|-4|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|N|$]]

i wouldn't put conditions that test needs to meet in the name, because conditions may change in time. in your example, i'd recommend naming like

<pre><code>UserNameLengthValidate()
</code></pre>

or

<pre><code>UserNameLengthTest()
</code></pre>

or something similar to explain what the test does, but not presuming the testing/validation parameters.

blocks|key|1772300|text|是的，被测试代码的名称(方法、属性等等)可以改变，但是我认为如果期望改变，你现有的测试应该失败。这才是拥有结构良好的测试的真正价值，而不是仔细阅读测试名称的列表。也就是说，命名良好的测试方法是吸引新开发人员的很好工具，可以帮助他们找到“可执行文档”，通过这些文档，他们可以摆脱现有代码的麻烦--因此，我会让测试方法的名称保持最新，就像我会让测试方法所做的断言保持最新一样。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1772301|我使用以下模式命名我的测试。每个测试装置都试图集中在一个类上，通常名为{ClassUnderTest}测试。我将每个测试方法命名为{MemberUnderTest}_{Assertion}。|1772302|[TestFixture]
public+class+IndexableFileTest
{
+++[Test]
+++public+void+Connect_InitializesReadOnlyProperties()
+++{
+++++//+...
+++}

+++[Test,ExpectedException(typeof(NotInitializedException))]
+++public+void+IsIndexable_ErrorWhenNotConnected()
+++{
+++++//+...
+++}

+++[Test]
+++public+void+IsIndexable_True()
+++{
+++++//+...
+++}

+++[Test]
+++public+void+IsIndexable_False()
+++{
+++++//+...
+++}
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1772303|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$G|H]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

Yes, the names of the code under test (methods, properties, whatever) can change, but I contend your existing tests should fail if the expectations change. That is the true value of having well-constructed tests, not perusing a list of test names. That being said, well named test methods are great tools for getting new developers on board, helping them locate "executable documentation" with which they can kick the tires of existing code -- so I would keep the names of test methods up to date just as I would keep the assertions made by the test methods up to date.

I name my test using the following pattern. Each test fixture attempts to focus on one class and is usually name {ClassUnderTest}Test. I name each test method {MemberUnderTest}_{Assertion}.

<pre><code>[TestFixture]
public class IndexableFileTest
{
 [Test]
 public void Connect_InitializesReadOnlyProperties()
 {
 // ...
 }

 [Test,ExpectedException(typeof(NotInitializedException))]
 public void IsIndexable_ErrorWhenNotConnected()
 {
 // ...
 }

 [Test]
 public void IsIndexable_True()
 {
 // ...
 }

 [Test]
 public void IsIndexable_False()
 {
 // ...
 }
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1557491|text|拥有一个描述性很强的名称有助于立即发现哪些地方不能正常工作，这样您就不需要查看单元测试代码了。此外，所有单元测试的列表描述了单元的预期行为，并且可以(或多或少)用作测试单元行为的文档。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1557492|请注意，只有当单元测试非常具体并且不会在一次单元测试中验证太多时，这种方法才有效。|1557493|举个例子：|1557494|[Test]
void+TestThatExceptionIsRaisedWhenStringLengthLargerThen100()

[Test]
void+TestThatStringLengthOf99IsAccepted()|code-block|syntax|javascript|1557495|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|H|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$I|J]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|L|$]]

Having a very descriptive name helps to instantly see what is not working correctly, so that you don't actually need to look at the unit test code.
Also, a list of all the unit tests describes the intended behavior of the unit, and can be used (more or less) as documentation to the behavior of the unit under test.

Note, this only works when unit tests are very specific and do not validate too much within one unit test. 

So for example:

<pre><code>[Test]
void TestThatExceptionIsRaisedWhenStringLengthLargerThen100()

[Test]
void TestThatStringLengthOf99IsAccepted()
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1556979|text|名称需要在合理的范围内起作用。我不想要来自构建的电子邮件说测试389fb2b5-28ad3失败，但只要知道这是一个UserName测试，而不是其他东西，就可以帮助确保正确的人来做诊断。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1556980|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

The name needs to matter within reason. I don't want an email from the build saying that test 389fb2b5-28ad3 failed, but just knowing that it was a UserName test as opposed to something else would help ensure the right person gets to do the diagnosis.

blocks|key|1557332|text|[RowTest]
[Row("GoodName")]
[Row("GoodName2")]
public+void+Should_validate_username()
{
}

[RowTest]
[Row("BadUserName")]
[Row("Bad%25!Name")]
public+void+Should_invalidate_username()
{
}|type|code-block|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|syntax|javascript|1557333|这对于更复杂类型的验证来说可能更有意义。|unstyled|1557334|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$B|C]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|F|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

<pre><code>[RowTest]
[Row("GoodName")]
[Row("GoodName2")]
public void Should_validate_username()
{
}

[RowTest]
[Row("BadUserName")]
[Row("Bad%!Name")]
public void Should_invalidate_username()
{
}
</code></pre>

This might make more sense for more complex types of validation really.

blocks|key|1772607|text|是的，他们是。我个人推荐使用SSW's+rules+to+better+unit+tests。它包含了一些非常有用的命名指南。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|1772608|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.ssw.com.au/ssw/Standards/Rules/RulesToBetterUnitTests.aspx^0|E|W|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

Yes, they are. I'd personally recommend looking at <a href="http://www.ssw.com.au/ssw/Standards/Rules/RulesToBetterUnitTests.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SSW's rules to better unit tests</a>. It contains some very helpful naming guidelines.

If unit-test names can become outdated over time and if you consider that the test itself is the most important thing, then is it important to choose wise test names?

ie 

<pre><code>[Test]
public void ShouldValidateUserNameIsLessThan100Characters() {}
</code></pre>

verse 

<pre><code>[Test]
public void UserNameTestValidation1() {}
</code></pre>

Are unit-test names important?

单元测试

服务器

如果单元测试名称可能会随着时间的推移而过时，如果您认为测试本身是最重要的事情，那么选择明智的测试名称是否很重要？即[Test]public void ShouldValidateUserNameIsLessThan100Characters() {}诗句[Test]public void UserNameTestValidation1() {}

问单元测试名称重要吗？
EN

回答 11

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问单元测试名称重要吗？EN

回答 11

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问单元测试名称重要吗？
EN