Zac Sweers
02/14/2021, 6:34 AM<config>Test
naming convention rather than the conventional test<config>
convention used everywhere else. Was there a specific reason for this? If not - would you be open to changing it? This is always a huge headache when repo maintainers try to automatically manage some configurations for tests and have to add special rules for kapt's backward namingyigit
02/16/2021, 10:55 PMTing-Yuan Huang
02/16/2021, 10:57 PMyigit
02/16/2021, 10:57 PMkspAndroidTest
?Ting-Yuan Huang
02/16/2021, 11:15 PMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 1:49 AMyigit
02/17/2021, 1:49 AMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 1:53 AMandroidTestKsp
yigit
02/17/2021, 2:37 AMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 2:38 AMyigit
02/17/2021, 2:38 AMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 2:39 AMyigit
02/17/2021, 2:41 AMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 2:42 AMyigit
02/17/2021, 2:44 AMZac Sweers
02/17/2021, 2:45 AMyigit
02/17/2021, 3:58 PMsymbolProcessors
instead of ksp
?Zac Sweers
02/17/2021, 8:49 PMFabio
02/18/2021, 10:13 PMZac Sweers
02/19/2021, 8:14 AMksp
, kps
, psk
, etc because people might typo it. That's not helping anyone, that's just adding API surface area to cover for people not reading docsFabio
02/21/2021, 10:24 PMpsk
is not an expected reasonable variation, so I wouldn't go that far. but there's arguments in favor and agains kspTest
and testKsp
. If it's not obvious to the people writing it, we should expect newbies (me included) spending time figuring out.
Each little extra step contributes to the learning curve. I'd apply the 5% rule here: if we improve lots of things by 5% we get a dramatic improvement overall.Zac Sweers
02/21/2021, 10:25 PM