What are the naming conventions you should use in MVVM software design?

As per my experience, adhering to consistent naming conventions enhances code readability, fosters collaboration among developers, and minimizes the risk of errors and misunderstandings in the long run.

These are great examples on how to name your MVVM components. When we develop in swift, we often times leave the “model” away and just type the name of the model but that’s up to you, just stay consistent in what you choose for the project.

In a robust MVVM architecture, naming coherence is pivotal. Employing descriptive names for Model, View, and ViewModel components not only clarifies their roles but also streamlines maintenance, making it easier to trace relationships and uphold a structured codebase.

Model: Use singular nouns to name model classes (e.g. User, Order, Product). Model properties should be named descriptively, using camelCase (e.g. userName). View: Use descriptive names for view files and classes, often ending with "View" (e.g., MainView). XAML files for views often end with "Page" or "View" (e.g. MainPage.xaml). ViewModel: ViewModels act as intermediaries between the view and the model. Use descriptive names ending with "ViewModel" for ViewModel classes (e.g. MainViewModel). ViewModel properties should be named descriptively, using camelCase (e.g. userName). Commands in ViewModels are often named with the "Command" suffix (e.g., SaveCommand)

Commands: Use descriptive names ending with "Command" for command methods (e.g., SaveCommand, SubmitCommand). Data Binding: Properties that are bound to the view should be named descriptively, using camelCase (e.g., userName, isBusy). Avoid using abbreviations that may not be immediately clear. Events: Events in MVVM can be named with the "Event" suffix for clarity (e.g., DataUpdatedEvent, UserLoggedInEvent). Services: For services or helper classes, use descriptive names indicating their purpose (e.g., DataService, ValidationService). Other Conventions: Prefixes like "I" for interfaces (e.g., IUserService). Group related classes in appropriate namespaces. Maintain consistency throughout the project

Common practices to name MVVM files: View: Append "View" to the name for clarity (UserProfileView.xaml) ViewModel: Name the ViewModel after the corresponding view (MainViewModel.cs) Model: Based on the entities they represent (Order.cs) Commands: Name the command methods & files descriptively (SubmitCommand.cs) Interfaces: Prefix with "I" (IUserService.cs) Events: Name with a clear indication of its purpose (DataUpdatedEvent.cs) Services: Service files names must reflecting their purpose (DataService.cs) Resource Files: Name them as (MainViewResources.xaml) Styles & Templates: Descriptive names (ButtonStyle.xaml).

View Tests: Name tests for views by appending "Tests" or "Test" to view's name ViewModel Tests: Name tests for view models by appending "Tests" or "Test" to view model name Model Tests: Name tests for models by appending "Tests" or "Test" to model name Command Tests: Name tests for commands by appending "Tests" or "Test" to command name Integration Tests: Use a descriptive name reflecting purpose of integration Test Fixtures: Use a name that indicates its purpose Behavior Tests: Consider including "Behavior" in test name Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA) Pattern: Optionally, you can use Arrange-Act-Assert pattern Test Data: If your test focuses on specific data scenarios, include relevant information in test name.

It's often intriguing to invert a proposition to uncover its rationale. Considering this page's focus on naming conventions' value, the contrasting suggestion would be to question why we shouldn't abandon all logic in code element naming. Yet, this aligns precisely with an obfuscator's purpose: obscuring code by renaming its elements (variables, methods, classes, etc.), rendering it inscrutable to humans while remaining interpretable by computers. Returning to the initial proposal, the conclusion emerges: adhere to existing naming conventions for comprehensibility, particularly when revisiting the code after several years.