ETL naming consistency

[mahalakshme]

Need:

Several times, ETL fail and comes as ticket and then we resolve similar table name issues. Instead we should put some checks on webapp/ETL to avoid same table names getting generated in ETL

Context:

https://avni.readme.io/docs/recreate-etl-schema-for-an-implementation#subject-type-program-and-encounter-type-names

Acceptance criteria:

Change 20 to 17 for the appended last entity names and append the last 3 digits of form mapping id
--- reduced from 5 to 3 - since a org might not have more than 1000 forms and remembering alphanumeric difficult than just nos - so this will simplify it.
--- same as system generated constraint names
Approach 2: append hash code like done for column names

Technical analysis:

Making sure first 6 characters of below are not the same involves handling many cases and is complex and hence the above solution:

• two encounter types within same program - add check at applicable places( when saving encounter type or program or form mapping)
• two encounter types within same subject type - add check at applicable places
• two programs inside the same subject type - add check at applicable places
• name of general encounter type and program not same - add check at applicable places
• When we show error that first 6 characters should not be same for self managing implementations it might become confusing.

Cons:

Concerns:

• cons: random: will not know what table to query,
  ----- since the no of such cases are less will not be an issue, now also when truncated not readable
  ---- similar to autogenerated constraint names
• regenerating -
• shortname for ETL purpose - cons: conflicts
• form mapping table - full table name - RQG?
  ---- the amount of configuration for implementors will increase - so adopting convention over configuration will help in minimizing this - and also makes it easy to scale.
  ---- also with time they might rename the forms and keeping the short names inline might become difficult
• not change existing names - backward compatibility
  ---- how many such cases will happen - thats fine, its only table names and not column names - so should be fine
  ---- its better to make this fix sooner than later, since once we scale it will cause more issues