Rename Emitter's argumentTypes

[zepumph]

from #182
Since creating Validator this name is not really accurate. Instead @samreid @chrisklus and @zepumph were thinking that it could be argumentValidators or argumentValidatorOptions.

both of those are pretty lengthy, and we don't love the idea of writing those for every emitter in the future. Also ValidatorOptions is more of the proper type that Validator, since it is an array of the options, not type {Validator}

Maybe argValidatorOptions isn't too verbose?

[samreid]

Since this will be prevalent in client code, we may want to optimize it even further. Perhaps something like validators. We could rename Validator to Validation if necessary.

[zepumph]

Feel free to edit inline

Naming options for validating:
Validator.validate // the way it is now
Validation.validate

Names for Emitter option:

argumentTypes
argumentValidation
validation
validators
validationOptions

[zepumph]

Marking for a quick dev meeting issues. What should the option name be for the list of validator options objects that are used to validate each arg. Some examples are above. Here are my favorites.

argValidators
argumentValidators
validators

[samreid]

validators seems best to me.

[jessegreenberg]

@pixelzoom said this is a list of options, so how about validatorOptions?

Consensus: if we call them validators, then rename Validator to something else.

[pixelzoom]

More 2/7/19 dev meeting notes:

There was more discussion, but we didn't reach a final decision on this.

One proposal was to move Validator.validate to validate.js and Validator.validateOptions to validateOptions.js or isValidator.js. In both cases, rename options params to validator. But what to do about DEFAULT_OPTIONS?

@zepumph Pointed out that isValidator.js would be doing something similar to PaintDef.js, but using a totally different approach. Why?

[zepumph]

Work done:

• separate out validate function to its own file
• rename Validator.js -> ValidatorDef.js
• rename Emitter option argumentTypes -> validators

@pixelzoom will you please review.

[pixelzoom]

Looks good. I made 4 commits above, 3 of which are cosmetic. But there was one bug, fixed in 89500ae - Array needs to be handled before other types because Array has a constructor.

Back to @zepumph in case there's anything else to do.

[pixelzoom]

The answer to this TODO in ValidatorDef.js is probably "not right now".

47 // TODO: do we need a isValidatorDef function? See https://github.com/phetsims/axon/issues/212

[zepumph]

Thank you so kindly for the quick review!

The answer to this TODO in ValidatorDef.js is probably "not right now".

You are right, probably so. I'm going to remove that todo, but, especially as part of work done in #204, I think that we will need a predicate soon (something to return a boolean instead of assertions.