Refactor backend: dataclass static function naming: from vs createFrom

[fm3]

Some of our dataClasses have static methods from(x), some have createFrom(x), some have parse(x).
Also, if there are multiple sources a class instance can be created from, the overloading is sometimes done with actual overloading (all named the same) and sometimes the names differ (fromArray, fromMagLiteral).

I’d say we should define a unified convention and re-name functions we come across accordingly.

Personally, I’d vote to use the last mentioned variant, i.e. overloading explicitly in names, and no “create” – The Vec3Int class already uses this convention.

@leowe @jstriebel any preferences?

[leowe]

I don't have strong preferences either way, discoverability in an IDE is probably better with the different names.

Would the standard static method then be from(x) and not createFrom(x)?

[fm3]

Thanks for your input :) Then I’ll set the new convention as I suggested above. Yes, the create prefix should be removed. Ideally it should say fromSomething(x).

I already started propagating this convention in #6249

Note that this is only about dataclass static methods. More complex creation operations like taskCreationService.createTracingsFromBaseAnnotations(…) should still have the create prefix to indicate what is happening.

[jstriebel]

Sorry, I missed to answer here. I fully agree, using from() and fromThisThing() sounds coherent and seems to be a more clear change 👍