[2.x] Group Components into Application "Parts"

[stefanzweifel]

In a tweet I've teased about a new feature I had in mind for 2.0: A new grouping mechanism to split a project into "parts".

I worked on multiple bigger Laravel applications in the past, and we always had an API part, a user-facing part and an admin part.

This new grouping-feature would allow you to see, how many Controllers, Models and Events you have in each of these parts and would create a separate statistics table for them.

📝 Example Output of how this might look like (data is fake)

+-------------------------+-------------------------+-------- App ------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Name                    |                 Classes | Methods | Methods/Class | Lines | LoC | LoC/Method | LLoC | LLoC/Method |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Controllers             |                      10 |       2 |             4 |     1 |   7 |          6 |    2 |           3 |
| Models                  |                       6 |       8 |             1 |     6 |   1 |          1 |    8 |           7 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Total                   |                       1 |      10 |            10 |    10 |  10 |          5 |    5 |           3 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+


+-------------------------+-------------------------+------- Admin -----------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Name                    |                 Classes | Methods | Methods/Class | Lines | LoC | LoC/Method | LLoC | LLoC/Method |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Controllers             |                      10 |       2 |             4 |     1 |   7 |          6 |    2 |           3 |
| Models                  |                       6 |       8 |             1 |     6 |   1 |          1 |    8 |           7 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Total                   |                       1 |      10 |            10 |    10 |  10 |          5 |    5 |           3 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+


+-------------------------+-------------------------+-------- Api ------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Name                    |                 Classes | Methods | Methods/Class | Lines | LoC | LoC/Method | LLoC | LLoC/Method |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Controllers             |                      10 |       2 |             4 |     1 |   7 |          6 |    2 |           3 |
| Models                  |                       6 |       8 |             1 |     6 |   1 |          1 |    8 |           7 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+
| Total                   |                       1 |      10 |            10 |    10 |  10 |          5 |    5 |           3 |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+---------+---------------+-------+-----+------------+------+-------------+

I've decided not to add this to in v2.0 as I couldn't find a good way how these parts could be described in code:

• Should it work based on Namespaces?
• Should it work based on file paths and folders?

This issue should be the place to discuss this feature.
Is this a good idea? Would a feature like this work in an app you've worked on? What's a better name for "parts"? 😅

Please share your comments and ideas below!

[amacsmith]

I like the idea!

I think you could allow the structure definition to be decided in the configuration file. However, personally I would base off of namespace.

A better name for parts maybe section, sector, or segments.