before merge, we need to add in (and test) the necessary IntelliJ setup changes

so far my approach is "put the minimum amount of code in testing", to get a first working version green quickly

but it would probably be better if I went on and moved as much code as possible out of junit. basically anything that isn't actually a test. since any test utility code is potentially useful in partests too

👨‍🎨 You could follow Lightbend's (organic) naming convention and call it "testkit" 🙂

moved as much code as possible out of junit

hmm, some of the support code seems pretty specific to the JUnit-based tests. so I'm not going to move all of it, just the ones that seem plausibly useful elsewhere. (anyway, not a high-stakes decision, we can always shuffle this stuff around further.)

You could follow Lightbend's (organic) naming convention and call it "testkit"

hmm. the package name is scala.tools.testing. I do like testkit, but we'd want to rename the package too, I think.

a tistkit, a testkit...

squashed — yes, let's merge on the fast track, once CI likes it, to get IntelliJ working again. we can always refine further later.

@som-snytt you might want to take a quick look and make sure I didn't misunderstand assert8

a tistkit, that's what our kiwi contributors call it

@hrhino tsk, tsk.

I recorded my vote against the package name testkit. A testkit tests for conformances.

@SethTisue 834e29f#commitcomment-4094652

testSupport is an okay sbt project name, but then we would still need a package name. test-support? meh

I don't understand what you mean by "conformances".

to me the main problem with testing, as opposed to e.g. testkit, is that's a hard to talk about out loud without rampant ambiguity.

(do you dislike the name testkit in Akka and a number of other Scala-based projects too... or, you think it's fine there but just not right here?)

I don't remember adding assert8 there, but it seems it could now be accessed from:

test/files/jvm/javaReflection/Test.scala

Edit: I have a feeling retronym suggested assert8 and other fixes at that time.

I think they use "testkit" as a rig for running a suite. Isn't it a set of tests for a feature or framework? as opposed to a general utility or framework for testing.

How about "scala enhanced test housing" or seth.

Akka's testkit is definitely utilities-and-frameworks-for-writing-tests-with, not a particular suite. That's my understanding of the term.

Cats, same.

Let's save the name seth for something much more grand. (In StarLogo/NetLogo it used to mean set heading, until I took it out.)

OK, I'll stand aside.

https://poolforthought.com/test-kit/

Or "test kitchen", the "kitchen" for short.