about package naming

Hi guys

Sorry to be that dull and stupid but I do not get why (beside following
the seaside convention - and I do not understand it either) why the test
package for FileSystem-Core is named FileSystem-Tests-Core

and not just

     FileSystem-Core-Tests

     like that we could have

         FileSystem-Core-Help

         FileSystem-Core-Examples

And when we are looking for FileSystem-Core we can see automatically
FileSystem-Core-Tests

Now we cannot.

Stef

Hi, I like the FileSystem-Core-Tests more, because then we can also have FileSystem-Core-Rules and FileSystem-Core-Rules-Tests. But I think that the other way to think about this is that if you want to (un)load all the test from filesystem you just work with FileSystem-Tests and not do it individually for each submodule. However this is just my guess.

Uko

Hi,

That naming convention is due to the fact that there was a time when Monticello committed the content of packages based on prefix matching.

So, if you had:
        FileSystem-Core
        FileSystem-Core-Tests
committing FileSyste-Core would also commit FileSystem-Core-Tests as a subcategory.

Actually, we still have the bug that if you would change something in FileSystem-Core, FileSystem-Core-Tests would be marked as dirty.

Still, it would be much better to have naming of a package reflect a categorization. So, FileSystem-Core-Tests would be much more preferable.

Cheers,
Doru


--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"If you can't say why something is relevant,
it probably isn't."

Le 04/09/2016 à 20:52, Tudor Girba a écrit : Exactly!

At Synectique we had to rename a lot of packages because this bug was
really annoying to know what to commit.

We opened an issue:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18712/Monticello-have-strange-behavior-if-a-package-begin-by-the-name-of-another-package

--
Cyril Ferlicot

http://www.synectique.eu

2 rue Jacques Prévert 01,
59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France

Je suis pas de place  que no necesita activar gustamucho la 🎶 que ya el otro lado

Le 4/9/16 à 21:15, Cyril Ferlicot D. a écrit :
You should mention it on the mailing list when you open a bug and this
one is important.

No guillermo. This is really annoying.

With long package list like Collections* then you do not see well the tests.

So we should check the bug like that we are free.

Je suis pas de place  que no necesita activar gustamucho la 🎶 que ya el otro lado

Le 4 sept. 2016 10:18, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi guys

Sorry to be that dull and stupid but I do not get why (beside following the seaside convention - and I do not understand it either) why the test package for FileSystem-Core is named FileSystem-Tests-Core

and not just

    FileSystem-Core-Tests

    like that we could have

        FileSystem-Core-Help

        FileSystem-Core-Examples

And when we are looking for FileSystem-Core we can see automatically FileSystem-Core-Tests

Now we cannot.

Stef

Guille

do you know if iceberg has the same problem?
I do not remember what nicolas mentionned about if MC entities were kept
around and used.
Stef

<offtopic>
Wow, I do not know where that email came from O_o.
It looks a spammish email. Maybe it came from my phone?

If it happens again, please tell me so I can take action.
</offtopic>

Now in-topic: I agree with having conventions and with the tests one particularly. But as you say, we should also think what are the benefits in terms of tooling so people do not feel forced to use it: they feel attracted to use it :).

No guillermo. This is really annoying.

With long package list like Collections* then you do not see well the tests.

So we should check the bug like that we are free.

Je suis pas de place  que no necesita activar gustamucho la 🎶 que ya el otro lado

Le 4 sept. 2016 10:18, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi guys

Sorry to be that dull and stupid but I do not get why (beside following the seaside convention - and I do not understand it either) why the test package for FileSystem-Core is named FileSystem-Tests-Core

and not just

    FileSystem-Core-Tests

    like that we could have

        FileSystem-Core-Help

        FileSystem-Core-Examples

And when we are looking for FileSystem-Core we can see automatically FileSystem-Core-Tests

Now we cannot.

Stef

As far as I understand, Iceberg uses RPackages. And RPackages do not necessarily follow MC conventions.

<offtopic>
Wow, I do not know where that email came from O_o.
It looks a spammish email. Maybe it came from my phone?

If it happens again, please tell me so I can take action.
</offtopic>

Now in-topic: I agree with having conventions and with the tests one particularly. But as you say, we should also think what are the benefits in terms of tooling so people do not feel forced to use it: they feel attracted to use it :).

-------- Original Message --------

No guillermo. This is really annoying.

With long package list like Collections* then you do not see well the tests.

So we should check the bug like that we are free.

Je suis pas de place  que no necesita activar gustamucho la 🎶 que ya el otro lado

Le 4 sept. 2016 10:18, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi guys

Sorry to be that dull and stupid but I do not get why (beside following the seaside convention - and I do not understand it either) why the test package for FileSystem-Core is named FileSystem-Tests-Core

and not just

    FileSystem-Core-Tests

    like that we could have

        FileSystem-Core-Help

        FileSystem-Core-Examples

And when we are looking for FileSystem-Core we can see automatically FileSystem-Core-Tests

Now we cannot.

Stef

Nice. I wonder where the MC problem is actually coming (probably a notification handled the old way).

Yes Icebergs uses RPackages, I have RPackages and Tags and I do not remember having problems.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Guille Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

As far as I understand, Iceberg uses RPackages. And RPackages do not necessarily follow MC conventions.

-------- Original Message --------

<offtopic>
Wow, I do not know where that email came from O_o.
It looks a spammish email. Maybe it came from my phone?

If it happens again, please tell me so I can take action.
</offtopic>

Now in-topic: I agree with having conventions and with the tests one particularly. But as you say, we should also think what are the benefits in terms of tooling so people do not feel forced to use it: they feel attracted to use it :).

-------- Original Message --------

No guillermo. This is really annoying.

With long package list like Collections* then you do not see well the tests.

So we should check the bug like that we are free.

Je suis pas de place  que no necesita activar gustamucho la 🎶 que ya el otro lado

Le 4 sept. 2016 10:18, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi guys

Sorry to be that dull and stupid but I do not get why (beside following the seaside convention - and I do not understand it either) why the test package for FileSystem-Core is named FileSystem-Tests-Core

and not just

    FileSystem-Core-Tests

    like that we could have

        FileSystem-Core-Help

        FileSystem-Core-Examples

And when we are looking for FileSystem-Core we can see automatically FileSystem-Core-Tests

Now we cannot.

Stef