We have an agreement not to use plural names in table names

Huh interesting, at least with the SQLite client DB all the table names are plural (eg messages, threads, drafts, etc).

I can abandon this if tunnelbroker_message is the correct name

We have an agreement not to use plural names in table names, that's why in our codebase we are using not plural names.

The initial precedent established in both MySQL and SQLite was to name tables using plural nouns. Frankly I find it disingenuous to indicate that there was a general "agreement" here when in fact you and @karol-bisztyga broke with precedent (eg. broke the existing agreement) and came up with your own.

Next time please do the research to determine if there is an existing convention, instead of just making up a new convention and trying to force everybody to use it.

We have an agreement not to use plural names in table names

Huh interesting, at least with the SQLite client DB all the table names are plural (eg messages, threads, drafts, etc).

I can abandon this if tunnelbroker_message is the correct name

@atul, please don't abandon diffs like this when you have a relevant reply like above. Can you please reopen the diff and re-request review so the discussion can continue?

In D3213#86933, @ashoat wrote:

We have an agreement not to use plural names in table names, that's why in our codebase we are using not plural names.

The initial precedent established in both MySQL and SQLite was to name tables using plural nouns. Frankly I find it disingenuous to indicate that there was a general "agreement" here when in fact you and @karol-bisztyga broke with precedent (eg. broke the existing agreement) and came up with your own.

Next time please do the research to determine if there is an existing convention, instead of just making up a new convention and trying to force everybody to use it.

We have an agreement not to use plural names in table names

Huh interesting, at least with the SQLite client DB all the table names are plural (eg messages, threads, drafts, etc).

I can abandon this if tunnelbroker_message is the correct name

@atul, please don't abandon diffs like this when you have a relevant reply like above. Can you please reopen the diff and re-request review so the discussion can continue?

The first table introduction was plural, then we are going to follow the existing code base with non-plural, so it was changed wise-versa.
I think we have some mess here and maybe in some other parts of the code.
As the codebase grows plus additional stacks added (Rust etc.). I think we need some single point of the code conventions. We have only tiny one for C++ right now.
In the past, I have used the "Code rules" in our projects. Here is an example from the past projects, it's outdated and abandoned, but maybe help as an example.

@geekbrother: in my opinion, trying to keep a single "repository of truth" for every single convention in a codebase never works. Either the "repository of truth" gets too large, or (more likely) people forget to update it.

Instead, you as a developer need to get better at searching for precedent. Before putting up a diff, you should look through your diff for any and all subjective decisions, and then think about where a precedent for that decision may have already been made. Checking precedent in MySQL and SQLite table naming should've been obvious given you were naming database tables.

In D3213#86976, @ashoat wrote:

@geekbrother: in my opinion, trying to keep a single "repository of truth" for every single convention in a codebase never works. Either the "repository of truth" gets too large, or (more likely) people forget to update it.

Instead, you as a developer need to get better at searching for precedent. Before putting up a diff, you should look through your diff for any and all subjective decisions, and then think about where a precedent for that decision may have already been made. Checking precedent in MySQL and SQLite table naming should've been obvious given you were naming database tables.

That makes sense, but at the moment we have all the table names in all services as non-plural. This diff changes only one table name. If we want to change the table names to plural we need to introduce the new diff which changes all the table names and makes a migration on the DynamoDB side too: create or rename tables.

The reason why this diff was created is solved, I think we need to abandon it in favor to the new one which updates all table names.

@geekbrother do you want to take this one? it's been a while and you're infinitely more familiar with tunnelbroker than I am

We have plural names in MySQL. But I think the original point of this diff was to fix the bug that @atul pointed out. Is that bug still active? And if so, does this diff still fix that bug?

In D3213#111109, @palys-swm wrote:

I'm slightly confused here. In other places, e.g. backup service we still use singular names. Do the names that are changed here reflect what we already have on cloud? Do we need to change something else e.g. terraform? It looks like tunnelbroker tables aren't included there https://github.com/CommE2E/comm/blob/master/services/terraform/dynamodb.tf.

Tunnelbroker tables for Terraform is on the D3965 diff.

In D3213#111238, @ashoat wrote:

We have plural names in MySQL. But I think the original point of this diff was to fix the bug that @atul pointed out. Is that bug still active? And if so, does this diff still fix that bug?

The bug was fixed because we change the table name in AWS, but it was a temporary fix until all table names will be refactored to plural to be the same with MySQL tables.