Adjust the existing Lua style guide

[igormunkin]

Considering the existing Lua style guide there is no mention for our test naming policy. This led to a little arguing in our patch list.

@Gerold103 claimed that we agreed to the following some time ago:

gh-####-description.test.lua

However, since we backport bugs related to the issues from other queues, the gh-#### prefix is ambigious. Thereby I guess the following pattern is the most convenient one for LuaJIT related tests:

<origin-issue-repo>-####-description.test.lua

Here are some examples:

• LuaJIT-505-fold-bug-in-string-find.test.lua
• tarantool-3196-bug-with-zero-hash-strings.test.lua

@kyukhin, @Totktonada, @Gerold103, @kostja, please dump your thoughts related to the naming policy here for the further Lua style guide amending.

---

Furthermore, all existing tests in LuaJIT suite seem to be written considering the current guideline and violate several practices mentioned by @Totktonada in the review:

• Use local for variables (tap, test).
• Use os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1) at the end.

Please consider applying these comments to the example in out style guide.

[lenkis]

Waiting for input from @kyukhin, @Totktonada, @Gerold103, @kostja

[Totktonada]

We discussed it voicely with @igormunkin already, I'm okay.

How many persons are necessary to form a quorum here?

[Gerold103]

I am against so long names. Test-run barely can print gh-####-descr.test.lua without screwing the output.
Also I am against <origin-issue-repo>. We use 'gh' not because of repo. 'gh' here means 'GitHub'. Repository is fixed. It is not an option to choose. All tests in tarantool/tarantool belong to tarantool repo. All tests in tarantool/small belong to small repo, and so one.

[Totktonada]

@Gerold103 Are you propose to file an issue to tarantool/tarantool (or tarantool/luajit?) for each problem that is discussed within an LuaJIT / OpenResty / luavela / moonjit issue? Is it worth even if we'll just cherry-pick an existing commit from some of those repositories? Are there any other gains we'll get with this process other then good test-run output?

Are there any other problems with Igor's proposal if we'll adjust test-run output?

[Gerold103]

I propose you to think more on the new naming schema, and fix the test-run output. At least you could come up with shorter names such as tnt instead of tarantool, lj instead of luajit etc.

[Totktonada]

So hot discussion :)

I don't mind against short names, however personally I prefer to don't abbreviate things if possible, except maybe most common cases. Anyway, this is not a problem: test-run can be adjusted easily. Your opinion looks as a personal taste, just like my taste to avoid abbreviations.

I propose you to think more <...>

It was unclear what do you propose: if you have objections, then you should describe your variant, right?

[Gerold103]

Well, I was asked to 'give input', and I gave it - I didn't like the proposed solution. After you asked what do I propose - I started thinking about it and gave a few ideas such as use shorter repo names.

[avtikhon]

As about me, I'd prefer the following format:
p.s. tarantool repo by default, so let's use for it gh-<issue number>-...

gh-[repo: lj|or]-<issue number>-<short description>...

[Totktonada]

Observed during another review:

As far as I see, our tests tend to use gh-dddd-short-description.test.lua name pattern for issue-related cases and name_with_several_words.test.lua for subsystem-related cases.

https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/2020-January/013595.html