Additional module standardization#8516
Merged
APickledWalrus merged 7 commits intodev/featurefrom Apr 1, 2026
Merged
Conversation
sovdeeth
requested changes
Mar 30, 2026
Member
sovdeeth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just needs to update the code conventions as well and this looks good!
sovdeeth
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2026
TheMug06
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2026
Absolutionism
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
There remain inconsistencies in our module organization after #8346.
For example, the CommonModule (and its packages) were not updated to use the introduced hierarchy system. It also still has instances of legacy registration.
As another example, the organization of elements is inconsistent across modules. Some use an elements sub package while others do not. Some go further with type-based subpackages while others lump them all together.
Solution
This PR resolves these inconsistencies by using the following guidelines:
elements/<type>package, such aselements/expressionsorelements/effects.elementsis to be placed directly in the package of the module.typessubpackage of the moduleentitydatasubpackage of the moduleI have also moved some ClassInfo registrations into their modules. This PR also fixes an issue where DefaultFunctions were loaded before modules. This could result in some functions failing to load due to the relevant ClassInfos having not yet been registered.
Testing Completed
There are no tests added as this is simply reorganization.
Supporting Information
n/a
Completes: none
Related: none
AI assistance: none