Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[DSIP-] Rename field operator to modify_user_id #16772

Open
2 tasks done
sdhzwc opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 7 comments
Open
2 tasks done

[DSIP-] Rename field operator to modify_user_id #16772

sdhzwc opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@sdhzwc
Copy link
Contributor

sdhzwc commented Nov 5, 2024

Search before asking

  • I had searched in the DSIP and found no similar DSIP.

Motivation

The field named "operator" in the project should be modified to "modify_user_id" for better clarity and easier maintenance

  1. First modify the backend code uniformly
  2. Then unify the table fields in backend
  3. Not involving the front-end UI, no adjustments needed

Design Detail

Incompatible changes

  • Rename backend code fields from operator to modifyUserId.
  • Rename tables fields from operator to modify_user_id.

These incompatible changes may affect users of secondary development based on API and Database.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

No response

Test Plan

Test by UT.

Code of Conduct

@sdhzwc sdhzwc added improvement make more easy to user or prompt friendly Waiting for reply Waiting for reply labels Nov 5, 2024
@SbloodyS
Copy link
Member

SbloodyS commented Nov 5, 2024

If this is to be optimized, all relevant frontend and backend codes and table field names need to be modified uniformly. You should create an DSIP first.

@SbloodyS SbloodyS removed the Waiting for reply Waiting for reply label Nov 5, 2024
@sdhzwc sdhzwc changed the title [Improvement][Parameter] The field "operator" should be renamed to "modify_user_id" and a default value should be added [DSIP-] The field "operator" should be renamed to "modify_user_id" Nov 5, 2024
@sdhzwc
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdhzwc commented Nov 5, 2024

If this is to be optimized, all relevant frontend and backend codes and table field names need to be modified uniformly. You should create an DSIP first.

Modified

@SbloodyS
Copy link
Member

SbloodyS commented Nov 6, 2024

Not all operator fields are modify_user_id. It may represent the creator. You should distinguish between them.

@SbloodyS SbloodyS added DSIP and removed improvement make more easy to user or prompt friendly labels Nov 6, 2024
@SbloodyS SbloodyS changed the title [DSIP-] The field "operator" should be renamed to "modify_user_id" [DSIP-80] The field "operator" should be renamed to "modify_user_id" Nov 6, 2024
@SbloodyS SbloodyS changed the title [DSIP-80] The field "operator" should be renamed to "modify_user_id" [DSIP-80] Rename field operator to modify_user_id Nov 6, 2024
@SbloodyS SbloodyS mentioned this issue Nov 6, 2024
84 tasks
@sdhzwc
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdhzwc commented Nov 6, 2024

Not all operator fields are modify_user_id. It may represent the creator. You should distinguish between them.

ok

@ruanwenjun
Copy link
Member

I don't disagree with this issue, but this kind of change will bring some incompatible changes. Before making any of these kinds of changes to db schema and API schema, need to make a specification firstly, and list all the fields that need to be changes, otherwise this looks very much like a random personal alteration. In the future, if someone think some fields is not suitable, he might submit another pr to change again, will bring an incompatible changes again.

@sdhzwc
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdhzwc commented Nov 7, 2024

I don't disagree with this issue, but this kind of change will bring some incompatible changes. Before making any of these kinds of changes to db schema and API schema, need to make a specification firstly, and list all the fields that need to be changes, otherwise this looks very much like a random personal alteration. In the future, if someone think some fields is not suitable, he might submit another pr to change again, will bring an incompatible changes again.

#16515 In fact, the ideas are similar. Whether to make changes can be discussed, 和 the operation can be postponed if there is not enough support. What do you think?

@ruanwenjun
Copy link
Member

ruanwenjun commented Nov 7, 2024

In fact, the ideas are similar. Whether to make changes can be discussed, 和 the operation can be postponed if there is not enough support. What do you think?

This isn't similar to #16515, #16515 has been discussed long time ago, it is not a simple rename operation or code style change, It's a conversion of concepts between workflow and process.

@SbloodyS SbloodyS added the discussion discussion label Nov 18, 2024
@SbloodyS SbloodyS changed the title [DSIP-80] Rename field operator to modify_user_id [DSIP-] Rename field operator to modify_user_id Nov 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants