Rename concepts

[Ndpnt]

Fixes #116.

• [x] Hook → Locator
• [x] Widget → Component
• [x] Data → Fixture
• [x] Feature → Scenario
• [x] Flow → Verbose

[MattiSG]

Great job!

I'm in favor of doing Feature → Scenario too. It is slightly more conventional, and less misleading: good practice would be to have both creation and deletion of an item in the same scenario, as we advise scenarios to be idempotent. It would thus mean two features are tested in the same scenario.

[Ndpnt]

@MattiSG You can re-review, it should be ok now :)

[MattiSG]

I see you rebased, is it safe for me to re-review only Feature → Scenario?

[Ndpnt]

Yes, but also review Changelog.md and package.json

[MattiSG]

Meh. scenario: inside Scenario.js is kinda weird…

[Ndpnt]

@MattiSG For scenario: inside […]Scenario.js, do you prefer steps instead?

[MattiSG]

Yes, that makes perfect sense and is consistent with current architecture! Great suggestion!

[MattiSG]

Done.

[Ndpnt]

I would say: "Each new commit invalid the review" just as we were used to say :). If you ok with that, one more check will be welcome.

[MattiSG]

Proven habits are worth keeping, and god knows we proved it right. I'll handle this ASAP.

[MattiSG]

I find it hard to do reviews on systematically-rebased branches. Could we add commits until GTM, and handle the rebase only after then, possibly confirming no changes happened with a diff?

Or maybe there's a way to handle this I don't know of :)

[MattiSG]

Could you rebase on master now that #144 is merged? I'd prefer to avoid yet another review considering the size of this changeset ;)

[Ndpnt]

Yep, I'm going to handle this :)