Open pawelbaran opened 3 years ago
Happy to get this added from my end
Agreed
Cool, how would you name the method? AdapterNameId
? Or without adapter name prefix, taken into account it can be deducted from the namespace?
I think I'd go for RobotID
, RevitID
, EnergyPlusID
, etc.
(note the all caps ID
as @FraserGreenroyd likes)
In Revit_Toolkit we have ElementId
, which is named after the Revit concept - I believe it is worth keeping it not to confuse the users, but on top of it I can add an identical method named RevitID
to align to the proposal. Would anyone be against such duplication?
Would anyone be against such duplication?
I would not be against duplication - intuitive for all users.
Sounds like the sensible choice to me too.
Following the discussion in https://github.com/BHoM/BHoM_Adapter/issues/288, I believe that adding toolkit-specific Query methods returning toolkit-specific Ids would be an easy yet nice UX booster - the currently available generic
AdapterId
method is hard to capture for non-expert users who do not know whatAdapterIdFragmentType
is. Therefore, I think we should add methods likeRobotId
,EtabsId
etc. that would simply callAdapterId
. Looks like we have an initial agreement on that, but just to confirm, what do you think?