2013/5/23 Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> > > 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 >
And I don't have it at production because I don't have changes file here. > yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests > separately? > It make sense when you try to reduce production image size. And loading only required packages (without tests) works well. Why change it?
