gravitystorm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)
> Have you also evaluated the other way around, i.e. change the model names to
> match the db table names?
Yes, I've considered it. But I think that in some cases this would not be
wanted - for example, renaming the `Follow` model back to `Friend` would spread
confusion throughout the codebase, instead of containing it to one line in the
`Follow` model.
> In particular the planetdump will probably not work at all with views,
> ...
> osmdbt will probably require some changes, too
Thanks, this is useful stuff to think about.
> I really don't see the need for this change, which in the end is a cosmetic
> change with a somewhat unfavorable cost-benefit ratio.
It is definitely short-term cost but I think it's a long term benefit. I
dislike having such unnecessary complexity for everyone who has to learn about
these naming mismatches over many years to come. Of course, if we had renamed
some of these tables 10 years ago, we would have been gaining the (admittedly
small) benefits spread of many contributors since and we might not even
remember the mismatches by now.
> For example, `current_nodes` (with the model name Node vs CurrentNode)
> contains only the latest **(the current)** versions of nodes, while `nodes`
> (with the model name OldNode vs Node) includes **all** versions of node
> definitions.
On the other hand, nobody outside of these tools refers to "current_node",
either in the UI, in the API urls, in the wiki or in general conversation. Most
people expect nodes to be called "nodes" and I don't think it would be helpful
to have a different term here.
However, I can be easily persuaded that "OldNode" is not a very helpful term
either. Possibly something like "Node" and "NodeVersion" would be better, or
even the question of how much point there is in treating the two separately....
but that's another can of worms.
Maybe we can set aside the whole nodes/ways/relations stuff for now, and
concentrate on the easier ones? My first two proposals would be:
* `friends` -> `follows`
* `changeset_subscribers` -> `changeset_subscriptions`
I can see that `changeset_subscribers` is accessed by cgimap, for example.
Would that be a blocker? Are there other reasons to avoid renaming these two
tables?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661452123
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619/2661452...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
rails-dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
