Unified resource setting method names

[alice-i-cecile]

As discussed in #1186 and #1349, this PR changes the name of Commands::insert_resource and AppBuilder::add_resource to set_resource.

This is done for two reasons:

1. Clearly differentiate resource initialization and setting, making it clear that the renamed methods overwrite existing values.
2. Unify (nearly) identical functionality between the commands and app builder variant.

This should make explaining and learning how to work with Resources easier.

[DJMcNab]

Could you split the commits into the one changing the names and the one changing the fallout.

[alice-i-cecile]

Could you split the commits into the one changing the names and the one changing the fallout.

Do you mean that the first commit should contain only the initial changes within the engine itself, and then the second commit should change the examples?

This change was a simple find-and-replace, so I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the fallout".

[alice-i-cecile]

Discussion on debugging the CI issue here.

[DJMcNab]

Do you mean that the first commit should contain only the initial changes within the engine itself, and then the second commit should change the examples?

Yeah, the examples and any plugins which use the commands in the second commit.

It all being mixed in one commit makes it difficult to see what the actual changes are.

[cart]

In the interest of unifying terminology, we should make sure each "operation name" is well defined and consistent. Imo these are the preferred definitions/terms:

• add: adds a new item to a collection that could have duplicates
• insert: adds or updates an item in a collection without duplicates (the item or key for the item is unique)
• set: overwrites the current value of a thing that already exits. You "set" fields because they are always there. We might allow "set" in the context of a "collection of unique items", but it should fail if the item does not already exist
• with: currently a catch all term for builders that "add/insert/set" something. this situation is suboptimal imo

These terms follow rust conventions, which i think is desirable.

Therefore I think this pr should use insert_resource instead of set_resource (which I think we've discussed previously).

[alice-i-cecile]

Right, I remember that conversation now. I agree with your judgement there.

I'll do my best to rebase and fix up this PR this weekend.