# What's the best practise in naming modules? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [January 6, 2006, 12:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729 "2006-01-06T12:11:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Henrik_M)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 12:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729/1 "2006-01-06T12:11:14Z")
Hi, I have a question about the best practise in naming Ruby modules. I am working on a module for unit testing XML documents (and document fragments). It would be logical, I think, to name the module Test::Unit::XML, and to load it using “require ‘test/unit/xml’”. However, this naming scheme could cause problems. For example, if the core unit test package is extended with assertions for testing XML. Also, even if my xml.rb file is physically separate from the files in the core test/unit directory, I don’t feel comfortable with the possible overlap in names. I could of course change the names: XML::Test::Unit require ‘xml/test/unit’ or I could do something like this: Test::Unit::XML require ‘testunitxml’ However, I neither of these alternatives is as appealing. What is the recommended Ruby practise in these cases? I plan to release the module, whatever its name, on RubyForge as soon as the naming issue has been resolved. /Henrik – [http://www.henrikmartensson.org/](http://www.henrikmartensson.org/) - Reflections on software development ---
**Author:** ![Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Henrik_M)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 12:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729/2 "2006-01-06T12:29:15Z")
Henrik M. wrote: > Also, even if my xml.rb file is physically separate from the files in > Test::Unit::XML > require ‘testunitxml’ > > However, I neither of these alternatives is as appealing. > > What is the recommended Ruby practise in these cases? > > I plan to release the module, whatever its name, on RubyForge as soon > as the naming issue has been resolved. Is this a general module for XML testing or is it a module for testing specific XML? In the former case I’d contact project maintainers of Test::Unit and discuss with them whether and how to integrate your code into Test::Unit. In the latter case I would definitively avoid using Test::Unit’s namespace. In that case you should use the namespace of your project along the lines of YourProject::Test::Xml or YourProject::Test::XML. HTH ``` robert ``` ---
**Author:** ![Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Henrik_M)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 12:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729/3 "2006-01-06T12:32:18Z")
On 1/6/06, Henrik M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I could of course change the names: > > What is the recommended Ruby practise in these cases? First of all, I’d coordinate this with Nathaniel (author of Test::Unit, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid). Second, I’d call it something complete different - a unique name, totally off the Test::Unit namespace, until it has lived for a while with different people using it. If it seems like a good idea _then_, I’d rename it into Test::Unit::XML (again, after coordinating with Nathaniel). The delay is to make sure that the design is sound, that you don’t find a better and incompatible way to test shortly after, and have taken the main namespace. That namespace should be for something that’s fairly permanent. Eivind. ---
**Author:** ![Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Henrik_M)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729/4 "2006-01-06T14:38:31Z")
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 12:31, Eivind E. wrote: > First of all, I’d coordinate this with Nathaniel (author of > Test::Unit, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid). I mailed him, but it was only yesterday, so he hasn’t had very much time to reply yet. As you may notice, I’m chomping at the bit. I have two other projects in the pipeline that involve both Ruby and XML. They will all rely heavily on the XML unit test framework. I expect to have a lot of free time in which to bury myself in Ruby code the next two, maybe three weeks. After that, the work will probably slow down. This is important to me, since the projects I’m working on have very definite deadlines. > Second, I’d call it something complete different - a unique name, > totally off the Test::Unit namespace, until it has lived for a while > with different people using it. If it seems like a good idea _then_, > I’d rename it into Test::Unit::XML (again, after coordinating with > Nathaniel). Good advice. > The delay is to make sure that the design is sound, that you don’t > find a better and incompatible way to test shortly after, and have > taken the main namespace. That namespace should be for something > that’s fairly permanent. Also good advice. In this case, the API will be fairly stable though. There is only one assertion, assert\_xml\_equal. The internals may change, but the method signature won’t. I will add more assertions eventually, but only as the need (my own or other peoples) arise. The main design decision has been whether to subclass TestCase, or just mix XML assertions in. Since Test::Unit seems to favor mixins, that’s the approach I’m currently taking. (It is also one of the things I want to discuss with Nathaniel before I inflict the module on the world.) /Henrik – [http://www.henrikmartensson.org/](http://www.henrikmartensson.org/) - Reflections on software development ---
**Author:** ![Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Henrik\_M](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Henrik_M)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-the-best-practise-in-naming-modules/51729/5 "2006-01-06T15:26:57Z")
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 12:28, Robert K. wrote: > Is this a general module for XML testing or is it a module for testing > specific XML? In the former case I’d contact project maintainers of > Test::Unit and discuss with them whether and how to integrate your code > into Test::Unit. In the latter case I would definitively avoid using > Test::Unit’s namespace. In that case you should use the namespace of your > project along the lines of YourProject::Test::Xml or > YourProject::Test::XML. It is a generic framework. The goal is to write something along the lines of the XMLUnit extension to JUnit, but of course adapted to fit with Test::Unit and Ruby style programming. I am taking a minimalistic approach, and aim to follow the “release early, release often” mantra. The first version is extremely simple, with only an assert\_xml\_equal assertion. Namespaces are handled correctly, and extraneous whitespace is ignored for comparison purposes. There is as yet no support for comparing doctypes and entity declarations, or for validating documents. Nor is there any support for comparing structures while ignoring content and attributes, yet. Still, as it is right now, I believe I have covered the most common situations where you want to test well formed XML. One of the things I like very much about Ruby is the refreshing absence of XML configuration files. This is probably why no one has written an XML unit test framework yet. (At least, I haven’t found one.) Still, XML tends to creep in just about everywhere. I hope more people than I will find the framework useful. /Henrik – [http://www.henrikmartensson.org/](http://www.henrikmartensson.org/) - Reflections on software development