feat: add ability to differentiate between mail and notification

[Pr3d4dor]

This pull request adds the ability to differentiate between mail and notification when using send.

I created another generator called NotificationGenerator that basically is equal to the MailGenerator. The only difference is the stub that is used.

When using send, it will look for the Notification prefix, if the prefix is not present it will assume that is a Mail and not a Notification.

It uses the Notification facade, but it does not add the Notifiable trait to the referenced model.

---

Closes #20

[jasonmccreary]

This is good. I do wonder if we should dedicate its own syntax though, like notify, broadcast, or push. That way the Notification suffix isn't required...

[Pr3d4dor]

Yeah, I think with it's own syntax the code will be cleaner and more explicit. If you give me a draft.yml file I can update this pull request. Or if you prefer to tweak this pull request in the live stream, I can wait and watch the live stream later (I can't watch live because of my work schedule).

[jasonmccreary]

After reading the docs, I wonder if there is room for both.

For example:

notify: user InvoicePaid:invoice, data

send: InvoicePaidNotification to:users with:invoice

Generates, respectively:

$user->notify(new InvoicePaid($invoice, $data));

Notification::send($users, new InvoicePaidNotification($invoice));

Basically you already have the second example now. We'd just add the first. What do you think?

[Pr3d4dor]

I liked it, tomorrow if I have time, I will implement the other one.

The Notifiable trait needs to be added automatically to the related model when using notify or either one?

[jasonmccreary]

I would say on the new one, ideally we should add the Notifiable trait to any model we are generating in the current draft.

We haven't crossed the bridge of updating existing models yet. So users will just have to add it otherwise.

If you get to it, great. Otherwise, I'll merge this add add the notify in the next live-stream.

[jasonmccreary]

@Pr3d4dor is this done?

[Pr3d4dor]

@jasonmccreary Not yet, it doesn't support the syntax that you proposed. I will work on it this week, because last week I was very busy.

[jasonmccreary]

No problem at all.

Just trying to understand if this first portion is in a mergeable state so you don't have to keep battling conflicts.

If I can merge this and you (or I) add the other piece later...

[Pr3d4dor]

This portion is mergeable, you can merge this and I will make another pull request supporting the other syntax. Or you can wait and I will update this pull request and you can merge after that.

[jasonmccreary]

Okay. I'll merge this as not to let it get stale. However, I'm not going to tag Blueprint until the other syntax is added.