Rename default example to something understandable and meaningful

[nickelswitte]

The name of the default code example of most parts is often inaccessible for students and is called like Grove_Switch-P_minimal.ino. I would pledge to rename these code examples to be in a) german and b) easy to understand.

E.g.

Grove_Switch-P_minimal -> Schalter Standardcode
Grove_Touch_Sensor_minimal.ino -> Berührungssensor Standardcode
etc...

[s-light]

i understand your request.

the idea here is / was to have a absolut name.
so that it is later possible to automatically include all examples in one folder for a simple download or MakeYourSchool-Example-Library style way...

if we have arbitrary names (that indeed could be more accessible) we would need to pack these in subdirectories for the examples to work.

for me we can use this second option - that way we are free to rename all the examples..
at this we have to be very careful as the Arduino IDE expects that the sketch and the parent folder are named exactly the same.
And there are no special chars allowed.
your examples are not working: a (space) and ü or similar are not allowed.

possible is:

Grove_Switch-P_minimal -> Schalter_einfach
Grove_Touch_Sensor_minimal.ino -> Beruehrungssensor_einfach

i would say Standardcode is not so helpfull here..
i think we need a nicer / shorter wording.
einfach would describe more what it is, but i do not know if it is a good idea to call it this way..
maybe just using a numbering?
or just test for the minimal once?

all other - more advanced examples could have nice descriptive names..

side-note:
currently in the parts view the Examples are sorted with the minimal keyword as the first example...
so if we change this i need to adapt the sorting.

[nickelswitte]

Hey, thanks for the response.

I get the idea behind the original approach, but would like to rename them anyway. I would suggest the following name scheme:

Teilname_code-beschreibung

E.g.
Schalter_minimal
Bluetooth_minimal
Lcd_viel-text
Buzzer_lautstaerke-aendern

This name would also respect the requirements of Arduino and thus not use special characters :)
What is your opinion?

[s-light]

for me it is essential that we have somehow a naming that is reliable in knowing where the example comes from / to what part it belongs.

for example:
Taster_minimal
would make a good name.
easy to understand and descriptive.
and it could be part of mks-SeeedStudio-Grove_Switch-P or mks-generic-Taster.
but there are very slight differences in the code needed.
that is exactly the point why we want to have an individual examples for every part we have in the box.

so if we start to come up with some new name at this point we are very near the point we are right now: a exact name that identifies the exact part we have at hand..

just a side note to keep in mind:
the pupils most often missing any skill in naming the sketches they produces meaningful -
so we also have to strongly lead by example here.
any vaguely names are misleading here.

[nickelswitte]

I do not fully understand your point, I think.

we want to have an individual examples for every part we have in the box.

We do, right? That is the current state.

so if we start to come up with some new name at this point we are very near the point we are right now: a exact name that identifies the exact part we have at hand..

I do not think so. I want to go away from technical names like steppermotor_5VDC_32-Step_1-16_Gearing in steppermotor_5VDC_32-Step_1-16_Gearing_minimal.ino and go to schrittmotor_minimal.ino.

So my proposal is to exchange the technical names, with the clear names from the official Materialkoffer.

In the worst case, we might have two times examples codes with the same name (e.g. taster_minimal for both buttons), but I do not see a case where this will result in any issues. They live in seperate repositories and the kids will never have an issue at all.

[s-light]

They live in seperate repositories and the kids will never have an issue at all.

that is exactly the point i disagree.
and i know i only focus on one case here - but a crucial one - i think...

the pupils start with the grove-switch thing.
then later want to update to the generic button type.
and here it would make very much sense to be able to download both examples to compare and find the difference themselves.
that is only possible if we have unique names.

and for the stepper-motor example:
mks-generic-steppermotor_5VDC_32-Step_1-16_Gearing
i just had the exact problem at the last hackday -
the network hub did not buy this exact type.
but something that looked about the same..
with some different setup: it had only 16 Steps i think.
so the example did not do what it intended.
and the description of the part also did not fit.

[s-light]

we have to come to a conclusion here in a different meaner.
it does not make sens to discuss this any longer in that way..

i will ask Laura what she thinks about this - and then we just stick to this then defined way.