Let me clarify my position. I'm not strictly against this change. I don't fear a such OOTB change, after all it's only name change, isn't ? And what you mentioned below Suraj is the right way to go. Obviously the concern is for custom projects.

Though I'm not directly concerned (I have no current direct responsibilities on custom projects which could be impacted) I can foresee issues on custom projects even if we provide tests to cover the change as Rajesh rightly suggested. Because tests can't guarantee  to reveal issues in custom code, so people might overlook when migrating. We have no ideas of what users do in their project, it can be surprising sometimes. So I'd like to have more opinions and especially ideas of people concerned. I'm not sure we will get them in dev ML. So I think we should ask on user ML. Even if I guess all users are not reading all messages on user ML, at least we would have done our best.

So it's more a +0 from me.


Le 13/04/2018 à 23:01, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi Suraj,

Did you get a chance to check if these entities are covered by tests somehow?



Le 13/04/2018 à 10:09, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it
will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at
we can easily follow these steps.

We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base,
provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses.
Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion
related to entity name as well.

@Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone
of them makes more sense to you.

Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <nicolas.ma...@nereide.fr>


On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:


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
this topic.

Please share your opinions on this.

It's big modification with potential side-effect.
I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all in
one :)

For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily



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

Reply via email to