-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
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
Iron out association asset names #3030
Comments
I think this is the way!! which does - somewhat annoyingly- mean that we will have some instances where the source dataset is also included in the datasets being linked. but i think that is okay and will make everything more consistent!! |
Which i thiiiink would mean this:
If the assn is within one dataset should it still get the
|
These look good to me! I think if the assn is within one dataset we shouldn't include |
Closed by #3035 |
@zaneselvans suggested we alphabetize multiple source names when they appear in an asset name. I went through all of our association tables and realized we not super consistent with how we name these types of assets:
{layer}_{source of association asset}__assn_{datasets being linked}_{entity being linked}
. However, we aren't consistent about the order of {datasets being linked} and {entity being linked}. For example:assn
at the end of the asset name.I propose we rename these assets to follow this convention:
{layer}_{source of association asset}__assn_{datasets being linked}_{entity being linked}
Tasks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: