confusing naming of functions/members
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 35
- Forks
- 14
- Avg merge
- 5d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
There is some renaming of members going on in the generated code, but it is not consistent
ScannerInformation: !record
fields:
tofBinEdges: !array
computedFields:
numberOfTOFBins: size(tofBinEdges)-1
leads to tof_bin_edges member in both C++ and Python, but NumberOfTOFBins() (note capital N) in C++ while number_of_tof_bins() in Python
Personally I'd try to avoid any renaming, but maybe that is difficult when covering multiple languages. We could enforce naming in the yardl model?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the generated C++ and Python members from the Yardl model example, focusing on how field and computed-field names are transformed. Compare the naming rules in both generators and define a consistent result for tofBinEdges and numberOfTOFBins; the issue names no files or tests, so identifying suitable coverage is part of the work.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, python
- Domain
- devtools
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100