Should names have a default value?

[flanakin]

Description

Columns that represent some logical entity (e.g., billing account, sub account) can have an ID and a name. Some providers may not support a display name for these entities, which could result in null values in the name columns. When a practitioner groups by the name, the only logical option for them is to use the ID in place of the name. Should we set the name to the ID when a name doesn't exist to save that effort from every practitioner every time they report on name columns?

Proposed approach

Use the ID for the name when a name is not avaialble.

Github issue or Reference

Applies to all name columns that have a corresponding ID (e.g., BillingAccountName, SubAccountName).

Context

Reasons to default to the ID:

• Save practitioners time when reporting on the name column.

Reasons to leave NULL:

• Logic based on naming standards could cause data to be included when not expected (e.g., WHERE Name LIKE "*-DE*)
• Duplicating data from another column increases the total size of the data.

[marc-perreaut]

Use the ID for the name when a name is not available.

I believe it makes sense, but it's data transformation, so it should be done:

• Either by the provider: the provider is free to implement this policy
• Or by the practitioner at data ingestion, if the practitioner wants it, and it's not implemented by the provider

[hrishikeshsardar]

I am in support of the proposal, use the ID in place of the name when provider does not support display name in some scenarios.