Was reading thru the docs for Wisp and it linked to gleam_packages for reference as a complete app using wisp. Reading thru the "packages" repo, I noticed theres a sql/ directory. I was expecting to see Jak's squirrel package being used, but instead codegen.gleam from the test/ directory is being used. Why is it there?
#Why does gleam_packages's codegen live in test/ dir?
compact sorrel
rough pagoda
Probably so it won't ship with the package if it's used as a dep or downloaded from hex, etc.
proper harbor
Where else would it go?
compact sorrel
Where else would it go?
Not sure, just was expecting test to be only test related.
compact sorrel
Probably so it won't ship with the package if it's used as a dep or downloaded f...
But this makes sense
So are dev tools/scripts usually placed in test/. In fact are most gleam scripts that get run with gleam run -m <file> placed in test/ usually? Is that the convention?
rough pagoda
Anything that isn't needed as part of a public api or shouldn't be distributed with the package. It's the only place to put it where Gleam will run it.
So yeah, dev-related gleam run -m-ables would tend to go there if you're not sharing them.
handbook.gleam goes there for my upcoming task runner too.
Which is a collection of tasks for your project.
ember atlas
I feel like a separate dev directory would be nice
rough pagoda
test is a bit of a misnomer when used in this way, but the dir also exists by convention, I suspect.
compact sorrel
yeah, well we're stuck with test now 
ember atlas
I guess you could also always do a subdirectory in test too to make things clear
rough pagoda
Except for ffi, yeah (for now).
compact sorrel
I guess you could also always do a subdirectory in test too to make things clear
Hmmm I like the test/dev/ dir idea!
Thanks for clearing this up guys!
proper harbor
I wonder if dev is a better name than test
rough pagoda
More generalized.
proper harbor
yeah
rough pagoda
Without further knowledge, it actually feels "wrong" to put anything other than tests in the test dir, like you're breaking the rules and may at some point face consequences
loud drum
I wonder if `dev` is a better name than `test`
Would that be considered a breaking change?
compact sorrel
Without further knowledge, it actually feels "wrong" to put anything other than ...
test was the last place I looked, after checking deps, devDeps and also reading thru some of the used package hex pages for info
I assumed the test/codegen.gleam which did come up on a grep, was a test for the codegen... I then moved/renamed the file to realize gleam run checks src & test.
proper harbor
We wouldn't do it in a breaking way, nah
loud drum
So you'd keep add dev and keep test as an alias?
loud drum
Interesting, thx for the insight!
compact sorrel
But we don't do breaking changes
I love this, but I'm sure it will be tested as time goes forwards.
loud drum
I love this, but I'm sure it will be tested as time goes forwards.
test/no_breaking_changes.gleam
compact sorrel
iirc go has a similar commitment, but gets harder as "bugs" are fixed in the language. E.g. when go fixed something to do with iterators and people got upset
Specifically Go 1.23 Iterators
Which was a "breaking change" but got thru because it was a "bug" that often lead to confusion to newcomers
proper harbor
Our solution: don't add iterators 😎