Architecture & Conventions

[ghost1face]

Hey all,

@0xZunia and community, I'm opening this discussion to establish some architectural guidelines and conventions. This is not the end-all be all, I'm open for feedback.

Initially I'd like to start with a few basics and open up some questions based on the different implementations I've seen:

Repo Structure:

• src/ToonFormat location of formatter library to be distributed as a public Nuget package under the reserved name
• tests/ToonFormat.Tests location of all tests
  • Tests must adhere to spec: https://github.com/toon-format/spec

Conventions:

• Use default dotnet new editorconfig configuration so there's no personal preferences - focus is on functionality
• One file per class preferably
• Treat warnings as errors on the main project
• XML documentation must be populated
• Use nullable reference types

Framework Support:

• .NET Standard 2.0 (For .NET Framework support)
• .NET 8.0
• .NET 9.0
• .NET 10.0

Dependencies:

• Preferably package has zero dependencies

Versioning:

• Use semver

A few questions I want to pose are:

1. Should we take on the dependency of System.Text.Json? I'd prefer not to have dependencies if we can help it, since consumers may have specific versions the rest of their code may depend on.
2. Are there other considerations we'd like to take into account? Is supporting .NET Standard 2.0 good enough for .NET Framework users if needed?

To start I will be taking on the unit tests to ensure all changes adhere to the spec, this will make pulling in and validating changes a much smoother process

[ghost1face]

I'm moving forward with generating tests to adhere to the spec. Once we have this we can start developing and validating the current open pull request and accepting future changes

[239573049]

1. Try to add support for the slnx format.
2. Should we consider adding similar support for JsonSerializer? By using the ToonSerializer method, it will be easier for users to switch to Toon. Just change Json => Toon => ToonSerializer.

[johannschopplich]

I see two options here:

1. Making @239573049 a team member and keeping the 1 review requirement per PR.
2. Removing the 1 review requirement per PR and letting you @ghost1face be the sole maintainer.

(There is even a third option, giving @ghost1face a higher permission to always merge.)

I'm thankful that you're continuously managing issues and PRs over the past weeks, so that's why I'm making it up to you! Happy do give you more freedom. Which option to you prefer?

[239573049]

Sure, I'd be very glad to join.

[johannschopplich]

I'd be happy to have you on board. Waiting for Daniel.

[ghost1face]

Let's add @239573049 as a maintainer. A few of these PRs we should then be able to get reviews on and merge. We still don't meet the spec completely but this will set us with a good baseline.

Welcome aboard @239573049 !

[johannschopplich]

Welcome, @239573049! I've just sent an invite. Thanks for contributing!