IT regression area Folder structure

[MANISH-K-07]

From #6981 (comment) :

Our regression area in IT should be fixed to match our pattern in Test folder.
Google and Sun area should atleast start with Input, but their folder structure follows a different pattern.

Now that we have completed decorating more than half of the input files of regression area in IT folder (the rest will also be done soon),
do we also want the folder structure to match our test path?

We have the test path folders organized and grouped into 2 levels
(coding, annotation, naming, blocks, etc as first level with respective sub-folders).

We donot have as many files in IT but IMO, implementing a folder hierarchy would certainly help with organizing files at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/tree/master/src/it/java/org/checkstyle/suppressionxpathfilter

@rnveach , this is an extension of your findings and please share your opinions if we need it done @romani , @nrmancuso

[rnveach]

I am more leaning to that I don't feel Google/Sun should change their folder pattern. It correlates to their style document , and I think it makes it easier to point to those areas and ensure we have tests covering what we support.

I don't know what pattern the others should follow right now. I leave that for others to bring ideas.

[MANISH-K-07]

We can do extra folders at
https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/tree/master/src/it/java/org/checkstyle/suppressionxpathfilter to group test in same way as Checks are grouped.

---

We donot have as many files in IT but IMO, implementing a folder hierarchy would certainly help with organizing files at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/tree/master/src/it/java/org/checkstyle/suppressionxpathfilter

Yes @romani , precisely my intention of this discussion.

We have special project that describes how them should be organized.

Just curious, what project are we referring to? Refine google style guide for Gsoc?

[MANISH-K-07]

If it is the check, then everything should be renamed to the check name and the inputs would again need to be renamed to Input{CheckName}

If we just want to have the input name and folders be based off the test name and not change the existing test names, then I am fine with that.

@rnveach , IMO the distinction "Xpath" in the names would be helpful.
So, maybe we could do the second point you suggested.. grouping based on test name, just to overcome the way our xpath tests are dispersed in first order right now.

[romani]

Just curious, what project are we referring to? Refine google style guide for Gsoc?

Yes

[rnveach]

Not sure why xpath IT is connected to Google Style. They are not related. If the GSOC wiki doesn't specifically mentioned this, then it needs to be updated.

[MANISH-K-07]

Not xpath @rnveach , we can update xpath files now.
By gsoc project, @romani was referring to the Google folders, I believe.
Please see #14757 (reply in thread)

[nrmancuso]

please share your opinions if we need it done

I don’t see any value in this work personally, so my answer is “no”.

[MANISH-K-07]

@nrmancuso , I agree that this doesn't make any "worthy" difference from user's pov.
The one benefit however, from grouping the xpath files/folders could be the ease of search for dev team/contributors, I believe.

As of now, all the xpath tests are dispersed in first order and finding the targeted file is a bit confusing without search filter
(I experienced this first hand as part of #14715). Please see https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/tree/master/src/it/java/org/checkstyle/suppressionxpathfilter

The update is rather simple and maybe beneficial for this specific path of our codebase ?

[MANISH-K-07]

@romani , @rnveach ,
@nrmancuso , please confirm if we want this discussion transferred to an issue or not?

[romani]

I amok to make issue, and suggest to move all of same package in single PR, so it will naturally be split in few PRs.

[MANISH-K-07]

Sure, Please see #14769