On 2013-05-22, at 22:11, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <[email protected]>
> 
>> 
>> 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...
>> 
> 
> Because tests not needed to run your application.

technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code:
- class comments
- method comments
- any documentation in general
yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests separately? 

Reply via email to