You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given a nested structure within an event, the name of the generated argument containing that nested structure will end up prefixed by the name of the containing event. This seems to follow from the these being matched to the name of the type which is generated (which is similarly prefixed).
I can understand the desire to predictably prefix the names of the types (though perhaps having a way to name them explicitly so that the same structure appearing in several events can be re-used rather than having several copies in the generated code would be nice), though it's less clear to me why the names of the fields should be prefixed. The casing conversion being applied isn't consistent between the two parts of the name, which suggests to me that this isn't happening purely as a result of naming the field for the type name.
Is this expected?
It would feel more natural to me for this to not be the case -- i.e. for the field names to remain unprefixed -- as that would enable greater consistency throughout the system.
Given a nested structure within an event, the name of the generated argument containing that nested structure will end up prefixed by the name of the containing event. This seems to follow from the these being matched to the name of the type which is generated (which is similarly prefixed).
I can understand the desire to predictably prefix the names of the types (though perhaps having a way to name them explicitly so that the same structure appearing in several events can be re-used rather than having several copies in the generated code would be nice), though it's less clear to me why the names of the fields should be prefixed. The casing conversion being applied isn't consistent between the two parts of the name, which suggests to me that this isn't happening purely as a result of naming the field for the type name.
Is this expected?
It would feel more natural to me for this to not be the case -- i.e. for the field names to remain unprefixed -- as that would enable greater consistency throughout the system.
plan.json
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: