Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] Fix test names starting with uppercase using gdb_test_multiple

[Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>]

On 11/29/2016 02:55 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 09:06:54AM -0600, Luis Machado wrote:
>>
>> Why just that one? Shouldn't we attempt to enforce this for all the other
>> proc's, so gdb_test, gdb_test_multiple, gdb_test_no_output and mi_gdb_test?
>>
>
> because all of them except mi_gdb_test call gdb_test_multiple.
>

Ah, that makes sense. I thought i was missing something.

>>>>
>>>> It can be tricky, since one is still free to start the sentences
>>>> with something like "ARM ..." or some other technology name. So
>>>> unfortunately we can't be too strict. I wish we could.
>>>
>>> Do we have some many technology names?  We have a white list of these
>>> technology names which can be capitalized in test message.
>>>
>>
>> It is certainly possible, but do we want to add one more layer of
>> maintenance? We could enforce a rule from now on to require test names to
>> always start with lowercase or to even be all lowercase.
>>
>
> This is done by manual inspection in the patch review each time.  The
> automatic checking is much better than manual inspection.
>

Right. I agree that we don't want to have to keep inspecting things 
manually. So if we decide to go all lowercase even for technology, ISA 
or arch names, then i think we can enforce this better via the change to 
gdb_test_multiple (and mi_gdb_test). Then we don't have to maintain a 
whitelist at all.

Does that sound reasonable?

>> I don't think we're coherent with our use of lower/uppercase anyway. For
>> example, GDBserver gets called gdbserver in gdbserver's own help text and
>> the testsuite is (less so now with this series) a mixed bag.
>>
>> I'm open to ideas.
>
> We've spent some effort to convert GDB tests to comply to this rule, so
> I am wondering if we can find some efficient way to enforce this rule,
> otherwise, the violation to this rules may show up in the code some time
> later.
>

I'd like that too.