Open Lamparter opened 2 days ago
Since I've organized the solution structure and standardized the naming of the projects, I don't see any issue around the structures (rather far better than before and almost best now), and don't see benefits that can be gained by nesting just to create just two folders in the src folder.
It's bad code style to have nested folders in Solution Explorer that don't actually exist.
(rather far better than before and almost best now)
You're absolutely right, it has been far improved but strangely exactly like FluentHub idk why from when I last saw the codebase which would have looked like this:
Youch, look at the mix of Pascal case and lower case
Wait, Files used to use Directory.Build.props??
Just saw that in the image.
I can say it's not bad with definite confidence since the solution file is virtualized and serialized folder structure which VS can deserialize, and so many solution files should customize the structure to be convenient.
but strangely exactly like FluentHub idk why
FluentHub has worked like an infrastructure playground of Files repo. For example, it has the exact same CI infra as Files.
Wait, Files used to use Directory.Build.props??
Can you send the committish url?
FluentHub has worked like an infrastructure playground of Files repo. For example, it has the exact same CI infra as Files.
Yes, you've said. 😄
Wait, Files used to use Directory.Build.props??
Can you send the committish url?
Description
It would make more sense for the folder structure of the app to match that of the solution configuration (nested folders) in the Solution Explorer:
Although the more generic
src
andtests
folders are used, theplatforms
andcore
folders don't quite match the repository folder structure.Concerned code
The
src
directory.Gains
N/A Self-explanatory
Requirements
No response
Comments
This might not be so possible for the
Files.Package
project due to the problems with it outlined in #16350