Add module/class nesting consistency on newly generated application:

[Edouard-chin]

Hello 👋 , long time 😃

Hoping to get this small change accepted even though it is style related.

• These two generated files are the only two that uses a compact style
  when defining a class, (it's not the case for their non-test
  counterpart i.e.

  rails/railties/lib/rails/generators/rails/app/templates/app/channels/application_cable/connection.rb.tt

  Lines 1 to 2 in 0f36425

  	module ApplicationCable
  	class Connection < ActionCable::Connection::Base

  ).

  This fixes that to add some consistency and will avoid users using
  rubocop with the Style/ClassAndModuleChildren: nested rule to have
  to manually edit those files when generating a new app.

[gmcgibbon]

As much as I see the value in this change, Rails is compact is by default, so I don't think we can accept this change. This is contrary to many people's choices, but a style preference I don't think we can selectively choose not to follow. Sorry about that! 😦

[Edouard-chin]

I don't think that Rails by default is compact, every generator's templates uses the module_namespacing thing to nest classes (i.e.

rails/activejob/lib/rails/generators/job/templates/job.rb.tt

Lines 1 to 2 in f95c0b7

	<% module_namespacing do -%>
	class <%= class_name %>Job < ApplicationJob

).

This is contrary to many people's choices,

No matter what people choices are, when you generate a new app you'd have to fix the styling of one or the other since the style in the generated files is inconsistent.

[gmcgibbon]

Use of module_namespacing is a good point. Also the fact that ActionCable::Connection is nested makes sense. I thought we leaned more toward compact style, but it seems a bit controversial. Thanks for contributing ❤️

[Edouard-chin]

Thanks Gannon! Hope all is well :)