Semantics: axis-name vs interface-name

[BrechtDeMan]

I think calling one of the rating axes an 'interface', as in <value interface-name="depth"> is a bit confusing. Before (too many) people rely on it, perhaps this could be renamed? This is only APE at the moment, or not?

[nickjillings]

Yes this is APE only. It can be renamed to axis-name. It's really only for the results XML where the metric tags are labelled with this to discern the movements caused by one axis.

[BrechtDeMan]

Makes sense. On the other hand, the different axes are actually called 'interface' as well (i.e. you add another interface node in test_create). So perhaps this naming convention works...

It's just that normally an 'interface' is the whole thing.

[nickjillings]

Perhaps the <interface> node itself should be <axis>?

[BrechtDeMan]

Makes sense to me. Somewhat reluctant to break this for legacy result files etc. - is it possible to make it flexible / backwards compatible for a while?