Standardize on naming for ContentType fields

[jeremystretch]

Proposed Changes

Update models in NetBox to use a standardized name for ForeignKey fields to the ContentType model. The name object_type is most appropriate IMO. Applicable fields include:

• dcim.Cable
  • termination_a_type
  • termination_b_type
• extras.CustomField
  • obj_type
• extras.CustomFieldValue
  • obj_type
• extras.CustomLink
  • content_type
• extras.ExportTemplate
  • content_type
• extras.Graph
  • type
• extras.ImageAttachment
  • content_type
• extras.ObjectChange
  • changed_object_type
  • related_object_type
• extras.Webhook
  • obj_type
• users.ObjectPermission
  • content_types (v2.9)

The proposal here is to rename fields named type, obj_type, or content_type to object_type. The Cable and ObjectChange models likely need no changes.

Justification

• Standardizing on a common name readily conveys the purpose of the field.
• object_type is more accurate than content_type and more apparent than obj_type. (type alone should be avoided due to its status as a reserved word in Python.)

[DanSheps]

My view:

Standardization is good, where we can get away with it. I know there are going to be places where we can (ObjectPermissions) but we can get close.

I would be worried however about how many instances we call the object_type (or the others) directly. I don't think there is many but could be wrong.

[jeremystretch]

Thought about this some more. Seems fine to just change obj_type on CustomField and Webhook to content_types, since these are ManyToManyFields. We can leave the rest as they are.