Comment 3 for bug 368157

Hello,

Markus, I second the thanks for you efforts. I must say that I also like the structure since in my opinion it's an improvement over what we have right now.

There are some minor things that I would have done in a different way, but in general I think that all of them are fine since I cannot think about something better right now. Anyway, I enumerate them below, just in case someone has any idea about how to make them even better:

- utils: It's a little weird to have a utils package and a utils module in the testing_framework package. However, I understand that the utils package is intended to help test suite writing and utils module in the testing_framework package is expected to be used only by the test runner so it's unlikely that both of them are used in the same script.

- ldtp_abstraction: I would have called this package just 'application' because it's shorter. However, I see that 'ldtp_abstraction' is a good name because it provides good information about what the modules under the package try to accomplish. An alternative name could be, for instance, 'wrappers'; but I don't like it much either

- desktoptesting_testsuites: I agree on that the name is a little bit long. Maybe it can be shortened to 'desktop_testsuites' or even 'desktop_tests'. I see in 'setup.py' that they are to be installed under 'share/ubuntu-desktop-tests/' so I believe that using the same name would be nice. Given that gnome tests are also included I could be a good idea to change 'share/ubuntu-desktop-tests/' to 'share/desktop-tests/' as well.

In addition to this, probably the __init__.py file in this directory isn't needed since I believe that the testsuites aren't expected to be imported but discovered by the test runner so they aren't designed to be a package. It's not wrong to have the __init__.py file, but I think it's not really needed.

Best regards,
    Javier