philipbaileynar
commented
6 years ago Commit 2411bd6e8fc1e7078fe7a334fa246301964dbba5 implemented the addition of the AOI name in the DoD name.
I'm moving the implementation of default names to the next milestone. Implementing automatic naming elsewhere in the system (reference surfaces, error surfaces, profile routes etc) is a huge black hole of labor that doesn't really provide much value. The logic for determining the automated name for each of these things is different for each object type (error surfaces use "uniform/assoc/fis" whereas linear extractions would presumably combine the profile route with the surface and reference surfaces would presumably use the statistical method mean/max/min). It's a ton of work that will undoubtedly create bugs (more work) and provides very little value.
It might be helpful to distinguish the way the core GCD team uses the software from that of real-world end users. The GCD team approach could generously be described as "fast and furious" trying to click through steps as fast as possible to chain together operations simply to verify the output or demonstrate a workflow. Real end users build their projects more slowly and deliberately. I suspect they contemplate each screen and consider the names more carefully. Making them think about the names is not a terrible learning exercise.
I'm not saying default names are a bad idea. I just think there are other more pressing bugs that require our attention.
Top priority is DoD naming esp with AOI. But need to be consistent for naming of all items throughout UI