On 22 May 2013 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 > i stand corrected.. actually i meant following composition: ProjectName-Core ProjectName-Extras ProjectName-Tests no 3-4 levels of tick-tacks (but i love to use subcategories inside a package, i.e. ProjectName-Core-Foo , ProjectName-Core-Bar... etc > 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. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > >>> Stef >>> >>> On May 21, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 2013/5/21 stephane ducasse <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2013/5/20 stephane ducasse <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello. >>>>> >>>>> New TxText version 0.8 is ready: >>>>> >>>>> - editor stuff extracted to separate packages TxText-Editor and >>>>> TxTextTests-Editor >>>>> >>>>> may be you should call the second package TxTextEditor-Tests >>>> >>>> >>>> I just follow convention of other TxText packages: TxText-Model -> >>>> TxTextTests-Model, TxText-Layout -> TxTextTests-Layout and etc. >>>> Some times ago I suggest such repackaging and nobody was against it >>>> >>>> >>>> Still I think that the packages names are not good. I do not hitnk that >>>> having tests mixed with the package name is a good approach >>>> and we should clean all of them for 3.0 >>> >>> >>> So what the correct way (Pharo way) to name test packages? >>> For example I have 'MyPackage-SubCat1-SubCat2'. What name for test package >>> should be? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Value is always contextual." > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
