-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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.
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
Suggest refactoring sample_app to more closely match "real" apps. #45
Comments
In general I concur with this idea but please see pull request #43 prior to doing any additional refactoring. Also - its been discussed in the past to put each command into a separate .c file, to eventually pave the way for commands to be included/excluded via compile-time configuration. Not saying that it should necessarily go there now, but I do think it would be a good thing to consider. |
I concur with eventually splitting commands into separate files for multiple reasons, I've found it beneficial in the past to organize more along the one "unit" per file model. |
Fix #45, Refactor to implement command and utility functions in separate files
Fix #45, Refactor to implement command and utility functions in separate files
Fix #45, Refactor to implement command and utility functions in separate files Co-authored-by: ejtimmon <[email protected]>
…-separate-files Fix #45, Move cmds and utils into separate files
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
This ticket is not related to a problem. This is a feature request to reorganize the sample app to more closely match "real" apps (namely the GSFC open source apps). This would increase sample_app's value as a template. In addition to providing a more realistic example, the organization of functions into files has implications for unit testing.
Describe the solution you'd like
Describe alternatives you've considered
None
Additional context
None
Requester Info
Elizabeth Timmons - NASA/GSFC
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: