3
\$\begingroup\$

The tag was created very recently under its first question:

https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/35332/dapper-test-code

Based on the title alone, well... the code within is meant to be test code. However, I feel that the tag name is a bit ambiguous. Could the name also refer to unit-testing? What about the process of testing?

On Stack Overflow, the two top tags under a search for "test" are and . However, this may be where CR and SO handle test code differently (fixing versus reviewing), thus possibly not a good comparison. But I wanted to make it anyway since SO is our "big sister" or what have you.

So, my question is: should this tag be renamed (new tag created while letting this one die)? That is, should it more accurately work with that question, if the tag is still needed?

You may also consider whether or not it's superfluous, assuming that test code doesn't necessarily warrant its own category here.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh gosh, all this time I thought SO was our "big brother"... \$\endgroup\$
    – Mathieu Guindon
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 17:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That was my first thought, but then I didn't want to think of them as a government figure a la 1984. D: \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 18:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That means SE is the Big Brother then! Doublethink aside, I don't see how CR's unit-testing would be any different from SO's... I think test should be burninated, it's redundant. There's no CR testing but I think that would be more appropriate for that question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mathieu Guindon
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 18:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Name it [testing], then? I'll wait around for more input from the community. If this is decided, then [test] will naturally self-destruct after the retagging. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 18:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree. Though tag self-destruction is kinda boring when you think of it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mathieu Guindon
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 18:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, but it's part of the system anyway. There's really no need for a moderator to bother with burninating a 1-question tag (unless said moderator is bored). \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 18:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ we already use the unit-testing on Code Review, 15 questions have been tagged. testing on the other hand has no questions, so I don't think it exists in the wild here on Code Review \$\endgroup\$
    – Malachi
    Commented Nov 15, 2013 at 14:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
\$\begingroup\$

Let's see…

  • Off-topic question
  • The only instance of this tag
  • The tag has ambiguous meaning
  • The tags's utility is questionable for this question

Based on that reasoning and the apparent consensus in the comments here, I've removed the "test" tag from the question. Whether further action is needed is debatable. When in doubt, a good programming rule of thumb is to do The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work, so I suggest we just leave it at that.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Good enough for me. I was thinking the same things as well, but I felt that the community should have a say. Of course, if someone else has a convincing opposing argument, then we could reconsider. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 20:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .