[discussion]: Naming of `Exclude` and `Rule`

[signekb]

Description

In Config, we currently have Exclude and Rule(s), but I think we can find some better/clearer/more intuitive names for them, especially for Rule 🌱

They are described as so:

@DataClass
class Config:
"""Configuration for checking a Data Package descriptor.

Attributes:
exclude (list[Exclude]): Any issues matching any of these exclusions will be
ignored (i.e., removed from the output of the check function).
rules (list[Rule]): Custom checks listed here will be done in addition
to checks defined in the Data Package standard.

And in the classes themselves:

@DataClass
class Exclude:
"""Exclude issues when checking a Data Package descriptor.

@DataClass
class Rule:
"""A custom check to be done on a Data Package descriptor.

So, as far as I understand, Exclude actually defines which checks to "ignore" or exclude from (the output of) the checks that are already in the schema, while Rule defines a custom check to be done, a check that is added

So, I think there might be something here with the words ignore, exclude, custom, and add.
Could we rename Exclude and Rule to something like in the table below?

Exclude	Rule
ExcludeCheck	CustomCheck
Ignore	Add
Exclude	Custom

As we all know, naming is difficult, so let's discuss! What do you think?

[lwjohnst86]

I like ignore! Not sure about the words for Rule though. CustomCheck would be clearer, tho its a bit long.

[signekb]

Great, let's try Ignore. How about Custom, then?
What do you think, @martonvago ?

[martonvago]

Good question!

I agree with Luke that ...Check is very clear but a bit long.

As for alternatives for Rule, I'd take something like Constraint or Check -- anything that expresses that this is a condition that must hold. I find Add and Custom vaguer than Rule to be honest.

Another thing is that class names should really be nouns because when you instantiate a class you want to be able to say things like "I have a collection of rules" or "apply each rule to the descriptor". This doesn't really work with Add.

Exclude is guilty of being a verb too (I guess it should really be Exclusion), but it sounds almost acceptable to my ear 🤷 . Between Ignore and Exclude I can't feel much of a difference. I think we had "ignore" originally, so happy with that!

[lwjohnst86]

Alternatively, to make both nouns, they could be IgnoreChecks and CustomChecks?

[martonvago]

Nothing against CustomCheck (singular)!
Also nothing against IgnoredCheck (with a "d"?). Could be in the plural as well, depends on if we end up with an AND or OR logic between type and jsonpath.

[signekb]

Hmm, I'm not entirely in the loop with the current implementation, but my intuition is more for the singular versions: IgnoreCheck and CustomCheck. I also don't think they're that long, so I don't mind.

[signekb]

Interesting, @martonvago, to me Rule feels unspecific and kind of out of place within the naming scheme of this package, while Custom, and especially CustomCheck, seems a lot clearer.