Handle subspecs.

[alloy]

Currently we only show the spec that wraps subspecs, but we should show the subspecs separately. An example of this is the RestKit spec.

[floere]

In the results you mean?

[alloy]

Yes :)

[floere]

What's the reason? Is that important?

[alloy]

Yeah. They are basically separate modules, like the rails gem which is just a meta spec for its dependencies.

[floere]

But do users of a pod actually ever refer to the subspecs, or do they pull in the BlocksKit as a whole, like we do with gems? (Well, not exactly, but in general)

[alloy]

Yes they do. And actually, because of a incomplete feature/bug, it is currently mandatory that they choose subspecs of a meta/wrapper spec, so it would be nice if they are easily found without reading the podspec source. See:

• https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/159
• https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/160
• https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/164

[floere]

Aha! Thanks for taking the time and explaining.

[floere]

Umm… design ideas? :)

[alloy]

I think they should be shown like any other pod, but with the full name. E.g. "RestKit/ObjectMapping/JSONKit". And perhaps we should add a list of links to the sub pods from the main pod, e.g. ‘RestKit’.

@mk @joe-loco What are your thoughts on this?

[floere]

I thought I got it, but now I don't anymore.

So the JSONKit pod is findable currently: http://cocoapods.org/?q=on%3Aosx%20on%3Aios%20json%20kit

The change is that you think it's important to find the "RestKit/ObjectMapping/JSONKit" when e.g. searching for RestKit?

Shouldn't we just list the JSONKit in the RestKit result itself? (And this is only found when searching for e.g. rest kit)

[alloy]

True, although that might just be this example where they are so closely connected to each other. It might happen that someone creates subspecs for a bigger framework, where individual modules are real separate components, though that hasn’t happened yet.

[floere]

Ok. Note that I don't advocate one approach over the other. I'm just trying to find out the best approach. Perhaps we could just try one? (Although… it's bed time for old me :|)

[alloy]

I’m all for just trying and I would start with the simplest solution, which is probably your last suggestion :)

[floere]

Okiedokie. I can do it, but would be happy if you told me how to get at the subspecs (yeah, lazy, I know ;) ).

[alloy]

Mais oui! Currently there is no method yet that gets a list of all subspecs, so you’d have to traverse it like so:

mapper = lambda do |spec|
  spec.subspecs.map do |subspec|
    [subspec, *mapper.call(subspec)]
  end.flatten
end

mapper.call(wrapper_spec)

This is untested code, though :) And if you feel like it, it might be more appropriate to add it to CocoaPods itself, but I can do that afterwards too.

Now first get some sleep! :)

[floere]

Nice one! flatten is not necessary, if I see that correctly? We can't run into circularity problems, I assume?

I think too that this would be useful in CocoaPods itself :)

Anyway… Yeah, sleep :) Have a great day!

[floere]

Btw, 122 indexed specs! Wohoo…

[alloy]

Yeah the flatten was just-in-case because of it being untested code :)

Btw, 122 indexed specs! Wohoo…

Awesome!!

[floere]

You were right about the flatten :)

'tis released: http://cocoapods.org/?q=on%3Aosx%20on%3Aios%20rest%20kit

Have fun!

I'm closing this – reopen a new issue if something needs to be changed. (Or change it yourself, of course :) )

[alloy]

Thanks, bro.

I think it needs some more work, e.g. you can't find it when looking for, for instance, CoreData. I’ll get that to that somewhere next week :)

[floere]

Should a parent spec be findable using its subspecs? (Because I only implemented showing them in the result) As soon as my brain gets around the idea of subspecs, I'll be able to really help ;)