Align with entity naming best practice #2201
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
See: https://cap.cloud.sap/docs/guides/domain-modeling#naming-conventions There are plenty of entity names in examples in this CDL topic. Some of them are "real" in that they are genuine representations such as Orders and Products. These should be subject to the naming convention best practice of being pluralised. Others are clearly illustrative only, such as the Foo, Bar, Baz set and those conveying meaning for the given example such as EmployeeView, SomeView, P, Proj, SomeExposedEntity and so on. These should not be subject to the naming convention. Note: Perhaps we should add something to the naming convention section itself to qualify the boundary of where it applies, i.e. "mostly" at the schema level, less so at the service definition level?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See:
https://cap.cloud.sap/docs/guides/domain-modeling#naming-conventions
There are plenty of entity names in examples in this CDL topic. Some of
them are "real" in that they are genuine representations such as Orders
and Products. These should be subject to the naming convention best
practice of being pluralised.
Others are clearly illustrative only, such as the Foo, Bar, Baz set and
those conveying meaning for the given example such as EmployeeView,
SomeView, P, Proj, SomeExposedEntity and so on. These should not be
subject to the naming convention.
Note: Perhaps we should add something to the naming convention section
itself to qualify the boundary of where it applies, i.e. "mostly" at the
schema level, less so at the service definition level?