Should description field be mandatory?

Asked by Javier Collado on 2009-06-12


Given that the description field isn't displayed for a test case that makes use of the shell plugin. Is it really needed for this field to be mandatory?

Of course the field can be used to explain what the test case does in the event that someone reviews the suite file. However, maybe the name and command fields provide enough description for it so in such a case the test writer may not want to write a description.

Best regards,

Question information

English Edit question
Checkbox Edit question
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Javier Collado
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Ronald McCollam (fader) said :

I feel that it should remain mandatory as users and hardware vendors frequently want documentation about the various tests. If we keep the description field as mandatory it is a fairly simple task to go through the test suites and pull out the test names and descriptions.

Revision history for this message
Marc Tardif (cr3) said :

Checkbox is designed to integrate other test suites. One of the implications is that it might have to accomodate the least common denominator where providing a test description might not make sense. For example, I could potentially imagine some unit test suite where only suite and name information might be available for a given test. So, if you encounter such a situation, please let us know.

Revision history for this message
Javier Collado (javier.collado) said :

I'll let you know if I have a good use case. Thank you both for your response.