On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 22 May 2013 10:38, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would use >>> >>> TextModelCore >>> TextModelExtensions >>> >>> TextModelCore-Tests >>> >>> No extra dash in the middle. >> >> nooooo :) >> >> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. >> For package: >> >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack >> >> tests should be in: >> >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests >> >> This convention used everywhere in pharo. > > Please do not do that :). > > If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code from > Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely implicit > one-to-many mapping. > > So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before the > variable part of your code. So, something like: > - BaseName-Core > - BaseName-Tests-Core > > But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for categories, > and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we also document what > is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the code browser we also > know what is mapped on a Monticello package.
I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as the code itself. The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the configuration. Which is basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for you. I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason to not load tests...
