grains.items vs. pillar.data

[rca]

I'm still a n00b, mind you, but I always have to try pillar.items or grains.data before correctly choosing pillar.data and grains.items.

Any thoughts on normalizing the namespace so that there is parity between these and a user can make an intuitive leap between the two? I would vote for pillar.items and grains.items since the term items feels friendlier.

[terminalmage]

I like this.

@thatch45 I took the liberty of creating two different fixes for this. Let me know which you prefer.

Option 1: Rename pillar.data to pillar.items. All refs to pillar.data (even in tests) are updated, with pillar.data added as a function reference to pillar.items. pillar.data hidden from sphinx to prevent duplicates in the docs.

Option 2: The path of lesser resistance (and the one which I'm guessing you'll prefer). pillar.items added as a function reference to pillar.data. pillar.items hidden from sphinx to prevent duplicates in the docs.

[rca]

@terminalmage, this is awesome, thanks! I like option 1. 😉

[thatch45]

Hmm, I am leaning towards leaving it data, since pillar is not as flat as grains. If anything I would lean on option 2.

[terminalmage]

@thatch45 Yeah, I like #2 more as well. Shall I submit that branch as a pull req?

@rca keep in mind that either way, pillar.items would work.

[thatch45]

Yes, lets do option 2

[thatch45]

BTW, you ever look at issue #2? This is not the first time it has been referenced, very funny!

[terminalmage]

Haha, that is awesome. Didn't even think of that when I made that comment.

[rca]

Awesome, thanks!