Provisioners' class name is confusing in some cases (and the same goes for test classes as well)

[fabiobrz]

Some provisioners have confusing names, e.g. WildflyImageOpenShiftProvisioner - which isn't clear at all about how the image is generated.

The same goes for some of the test classes, e.g.: MysqlImageTestCase..

We should perform a minor refactoring round to give better names to such components.

---

• Environment: tools + testsuite
• Steps to reproduce: N/A

[rsearls]

please provide more information about what qualities or factors should be used in creating better descriptive names.

[fabiobrz]

please provide more information about what qualities or factors should be used in creating better descriptive names.

Thanks for looking into this issue, @rsearls.
IMO our main factor would be to let the user get the gist of the way an image is created, and how the provisioning process happens.
Intersmash provisions images to OpenShift, so naming a provisioner after a generic image, as in the example which is mentioned in this issue description, doesn't make sense. Maybe the main question that we should keep in mind when renaming would be: what is the technology this provisioner will use to provision the service? Helm Charts? Then use the HelmChartProvisioner, similarly it would work for the operator.
According to these rules, the example in the issue description would maybe need to be renamed to something like WildFlyS2iBasedImageOpenShiftProvisioner- just my personal taste.
The same would apply to the related test classes.

WDYT?