Discourage the use of true/falsevalue for boolean test parameters

[bernt-matthias]

xref galaxyproject/tools-iuc#4053 (comment)

Because it gives a stronger test.

How to test the changes?

(Select all options that apply)

• I've included appropriate automated tests.
• This is a refactoring of components with existing test coverage.
• Instructions for manual testing are as follows:
  1. [add testing steps and prerequisites here if you didn't write automated tests covering all your changes]

License

• I agree to license these contributions under Galaxy's current license.
• I agree to allow the Galaxy committers to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license. If this condition is an issue, uncheck and just let us know why with an e-mail to galaxy-committers@lists.galaxyproject.org.

[mvdbeek]

Do I understand this correctly that you want to discourage truevalue/falsevalue in general ? I strongly disagree about this, but the link isn't sufficient for me to understand why using truevalue/falsevalue results in weak tests and if that couldn't be improved.

[bernt-matthias]

Actually I just wanted to bring the discussion with @wm75 where it belongs :)

But I tend to agree with him .. but I do not have a really strong opinion:

Using just true and false is closer to what happens if the user checks or unchecks the boolean. So one may say that you test what the label of the boolean says (I'm always confused by double negatives, i.e. if the label contains a "do not" and the argument also contains something like "--no-...".)

Another reason might be this ambiguity: <param name="boolean" type="boolean" truevalue="false" falsevalue="true" />

[wm75]

@mvdbeek This is not about the use of truevalue/falsevalue for boolean params, it's about using those literal values in tests instead of "true"/"false".

[github-actions]

This PR was merged without a "kind/" label, please correct.