Refactor descriptions and test for big numbers

[NickNeck]

That is just a little refactoring of the tests for big numbers. For my test-runner, I need unique names for descriptions. I think it is also a little bit more readable in this form.

[Julian]

Hey!

Thanks (again).

I'm not so comfortable with this to be honest :/

I'd love to resolve #223 first before merging these kinds of changes, for two reasons:

• I don't want to cater to properties that we do not currently guarantee (like "all descriptions are unique") -- either we should make that so and add a (suite) test guaranteeing it is the case, or, I suspect more likely, you should change your suite loader :) -- the reasoning there is simple, either it's a guarantee going forward, or someone will introduce some later test that will again not have this property, and again we'll churn on it

• At the minute it's a gray area on what's safe to change for backwards compatibility (The suite should explicitly document its backwards compatibility policy #223) -- all there is is the description essentially at the minute (which you can use as a fully-qualified-path to the test), so when you change that, anyone who might have pinned away from that test might now be broken (or well, might need to update their suite loader)

Hope that makes sense, but if not, lemme know, and definitely definitely would appreciate help on #223.

[NickNeck]

Hello,

that makes sense. I will tell my suite loader to be a little bit more relaxed.

Maybe I can write my opinions to #223 if I find some time.

Thanks, have a nice day.

[Julian]

That would be great :)

Thanks!!