Codecov Report

Merging #69 into master will increase coverage by 0.19%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master      #69      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     60.19%   60.38%   +0.19%     
- Complexity      138      143       +5     
============================================
  Files            14       14              
  Lines           603      616      +13     
  Branches         92       94       +2     
============================================
+ Hits            363      372       +9     
- Misses          217      219       +2     
- Partials         23       25       +2

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e6bd3cf...429d95d. Read the comment docs.

Re module name, what about com.google.api.api-common? I think that just com.google.api.common may not be unique enough (e.g. what about code (either inside or outside Google) placed in a package named com.google.api.common?)

@michaelbausor - is a forbidden symbol in JPMS module names. Seems like mostly just the top level package is used, in this case there are multiple packages so hard to choose one. Maybe com.google.api.core?

@TheIndifferent good point re -, sorry about that.

I found reading this comment very useful, although I still don't know what the right answer is: google/guava#2846 (comment)

Basically, I agree with the structure of the name that you proposed at first, which was <common-package>.<some-name-for-this-package>, but I was worried that common might not be a unique enough name.

I would worry that it might be confusing to use com.google.api.core if that covers only some of the package names in the repo - but, I really am not very confident.

Is something like com.google.api.apicommon just too weird/unreadable?

@michaelbausor no actually com.google.api.apicommon is descriptive enough. Should I update the PR with that one?

@TheIndifferent I'm happy with that if you are. Thanks!

@michaelbausor, I updated the PR as per your comments. Can you please review?