Making autogenerated schema names more readable
When I create a section Foo, UsrFoo1Page and UsrFoo1Section are generated. Is the '1' needed here? I usually change the names to remove this number.
The situation is even worse when it comes to details - they get names like UsrSchema15Detail. With many details in the repo it starts getting difficult to understand what are all of them doing. Of course we can change the names ourselves but would it be possible to generate them better in the first place? If we take into the account what entity are they based on, we could probably automatically name them something like UsrFooDetail (and UsrFooDetail2, UsrFooDetail3, etc. if more than one detail is needed).
Do you like this idea?
Dear Carlos,
I have forwarded your request to our business analysts. They will evaluate the possibility of implementation in future system releases.Thank you for helping us to make our application better!
I do agree. I would love to have the names without the unnecessary numbers in them. Plus, I'd love to not have to keep renaming my details.
Ryan Farley,
hi Ryan
Please can you explain me the way to rename autogenerated schema?
Some schema I' m able to rename it but sometime after rename the section doesnt work because it continues to referer to the old js file
Stefano Bassoli,
It's been a long time since I did that, I gave up on renaming them just due to the extra steps - so I can't remember the complete steps I'd use. However, at least for detail schemas, in addition to renaming the schema file itself, you need to update the entry in the SysDetail table (if I recall correctly). I think it was that you had to get the UId of the schema from SysSchema and update the corresponding entry in the SysDetail table? Or something like that - it's been a while so can't remember if that is right, I'd test this out in a trial system first.
Ryan
Ryan Farley,
Thanks, I'll try it myself and I'll tell you the result