Just to throw in my 2 cents, I don't think the naming is so confusing that it warrants changing. The number of replies in this thread highlights that it isn't a straightforward thing to change, and personally I don't think the names are so bad that it's worth any of the pain that might come from changing them.
IMO "OrderShipGroup" could just as easily imply a group of orders that should be shipped together as though they were a single order. So to me, "OrderItemShipGroup" does make some sense for the parent entity. The child entity is a bit trickier, because "OrderItemShipGroupOrderItem" is terrible so I guess that's why "Assoc" was chosen as the suffix. "OrderItemShipGroupItem" could work but it's not much better than "Assoc". Sometime's names aren't perfect, but they're usually close enough that it doesn't matter very much. Regards Scott On 10 April 2018 at 23:24, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Hello, > > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage. > > - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't > contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as > *OrderShipGroup.* > - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it > just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be > re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code > readablity. > > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory', > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on > this topic. > > Please share your opinions on this. > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert > *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems* > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010 > Cell phone: +91 96697-50002 >
