Fitnesse and coding convention

I have recently started to use Fitnesse to document the requirements of two of my projects. It is a wonderful tool that not only makes writing requirement more fun, but also makes the process works. Many of us are used to hundreds of pages of requirement document that only satisfies the "process police" but does little help to developers. The requirements written in Fitnesse is live and up to date. It just works!

But there is one thing I am scratching my head now which is the coding convention used by Fitnesse. For many fixtures, such as RowFixture, the convention is to match the column name to a public member variable in the fixture class. The traditional getter and setter approach is not supported here.

Many people oppose the idea of getter and setter and consider them evil. I am ok to either approaches. But the problem is the coding convention adopted by my organization is to have each member variable prefixed by the "m" and all member variables should be accessed through getters and setters. I cannot find a way to reconcile this problem. I won't be a problem to make a special case for this, but I really hope Fitnesse can support both approaches.

No comments: