On 23 May 2013 02:38, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 May 2013 22:16, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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? > > for me there is one big reason to put tests in separate package: modularity. > I usually care a little about modularity when writing tests (they can > use anything from anything, > as long as test fulfills its purpose and covers the functionality i need).. > But in regular code i cannot afford that , because then Kernel will > start depending on Morphic etc.. >
.. as for production, i am even more radical: i would leave only bytecode in image. (and some people would even go further and obfuscate class/method names, replacing them with meaningless names). The problem is that we don't have such tools. Probably because we don't need them, because most of our work is open source. But for proprietary, closed-source project i bet this is one of the issues why pointy-hair managers ;) prefer to use other language than smalltalk. > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
