Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Use consistent track parameters type names #151

Closed
msmk0 opened this issue Apr 25, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #429
Closed

Use consistent track parameters type names #151

msmk0 opened this issue Apr 25, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #429
Labels
Component - Core Affects the Core module Impact - Major Significant bug and/or affects a lot of modules Improvement Changes to an existing feature
Milestone
v1.0.0

Comments

@msmk0
Copy link
Contributor

msmk0 commented Apr 25, 2020

The track parameters classes currently use an inconsistent naming scheme. Some are named ...TrackParameters, e.g.

SingleBoundTrackParameters
SingleCurvilinearTrackParameters

while others are named just ...Parameters, e.g.

SingleFreeParameters
BoundParameters // typedef-ed from SingleBoundTrackParameters

Let's choose either {Bound,Curvilinear,Free}TrackParameters or {Bound,Curvilinear,Free}Parameters and use it consistently. The former is crystal clear about the purporse while the later is more concise.
@msmk0 msmk0 added Component - Core Affects the Core module Improvement Changes to an existing feature Needs Decision Needs decision or further information Impact - Major Significant bug and/or affects a lot of modules labels Apr 25, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 changed the title Use consistent track parameter type names Use consistent track parameters type names Apr 25, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 mentioned this issue Apr 27, 2020
Closed
@msmk0 msmk0 mentioned this issue May 27, 2020
Closed
15 tasks
@msmk0
Copy link
Contributor Author

msmk0 commented Jun 3, 2020

The decision is to use the longer ...TrackParameters scheme.

@msmk0 msmk0 removed the Needs Decision Needs decision or further information label Jun 3, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 mentioned this issue Jun 11, 2020
Merged
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 3, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the Stale label Jul 3, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 removed the Stale label Jul 9, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 mentioned this issue Jul 14, 2020
Merged
msmk0 added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 14, 2020
@msmk0
Refactor the track parameters concepts (#320)
ac61fdf 
Split the previous `ParameterConcept` into `BoundTrackParametersConcept` and `FreeTrackParametersConcept` with a consistent implementation. The names are chosen to be consistent with the naming scheme for the track parameters in #151. Definitions are moved to the `Concepts` namespace as discussed in #42.

Add assertions that the concrete track parameters classes satisfy the concepts.
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Aug 8, 2020

This issue/PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the Stale label Aug 8, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 removed the Stale label Aug 14, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 added this to the v1.00.00 milestone Aug 27, 2020
@msmk0 msmk0 mentioned this issue Sep 2, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component - Core Affects the Core module Impact - Major Significant bug and/or affects a lot of modules Improvement Changes to an existing feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.0.0
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

refactor!: consistent track parameters names (Part 2) msmk0/acts
1 participant
@msmk0