I agree (Premature Optimisation...), but let's see what others have to say...
Le 12/04/2018 à 15:47, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :
is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
however i agree with the proposer that they are not named properly.
secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
touch scenarios that use the entities in question.
presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de>
thanks for your proposal.
Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
Thanks and regards,
Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
Please share your opinions on this.
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002