Terminology & structure

[maxlinc]

I want to get the codebase a bit more organized and consistent. Several of these ideas have been discussed before and we seemed to have some consensus, but they didn't sneak into PRs yet.

My proposal:

• rename build_contract/build_contracts to load_contract/load_contracts
• rename validate_consumer to validate_response and validate_provider to simulate_request (I've realized that validate_consumer validates stubbed responses while the validate_provider simulates a consumer making valid requests)
• deprecated Pacto::Core::Hook, Pacto::Hooks::ERBHook, and Pacto::ERBProcessor for middleware.
• rename Pacto::Stubs::BuiltIn to Pacto::Stubs::WebMockAdapter
• rename stub_all to simulate_consumers and stub_all to stub_providers

I'd also like to outline a structure, similar to http://fog.io/about/structure.html, where we outline a few central concepts that deserve their own folders (mostly around extension points - validators, stubs, generators, ...). I think "core" should be used for essential but non-extensible parts of Pacto... i.e. things that load and control the flow of the extensible pieces.

[marcosccm]

I like the naming changes, will send a PR with them.

Do we really need to deprecate the hooks? The current version is so different from master that I think we can simply delete them.

I need to read about the fog structure

[maxlinc]

I think we should preserve ERB post-processing as a feature, so we can't
just delete them until we have an alternative implementation.

I think rather "deprecate" we can just drop it from the config and
documentation so ERB processing still works, but custom hooks are an
undocumented/unused feature.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Marcos Castilho da Costa Matos <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

I like the naming changes, will send a PR with them.

Do we really need to deprecate the hooks? The current version is so
different from master that I think we can simply delete them.

I need to read about the fog structure

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/93#issuecomment-34750817
.

[jmmercadom]

Since the PR associated was already merged, can we close this issue?

[maxlinc]

The PR didn't have all of the proposed changes. In particular, it doesn't have validate_response/simulate_consumer.

I also forgot about stub_all and validate_all, which should probably be stub_providers and simulate_consumers.

Since 0.3.0 was released, I'd recommend using a deprecated alias technique. I think we should leave this open a bit longer, until we make further changes or decide to leave things as-is.

[jmmercadom]

Ok, I changed the original comment into a check list, this way we can track all things that are not implemented yet, and also to know when to close this issue.

[maxlinc]

Changed the remaining names.