Schema talk:GuidedTourGuiderImpression
.svg)
| Maintainer: | Aaron Halfaker & Matt Flaschen |
|---|---|
| Team: | Growth |
| Please specify the project using this schema. | |
| Status: | inactive |
| Purge: | Auto-purge just eventCapsule PII after 90 days, keep the rest indefinitely |
This page holds a JSON schema that specifies a data model for EventLogging.
Moved from Schema:GuidedTourGuiderImpression
editUser:Steven (WMF) moved this schema from GuidedTourGuiderImpression to this shorter name. Per my discussion with him prior to the move on IRC, I don't think this is a good idea. This schema represents a "guider impression" of type "guided tour". In this case and in the case of variable naming, I think it is preferable to be explicit. Comments/descriptions are great, but they are no replacement for an unambiguous name. FWIW, this is not the most verbose schema name. See Schema:ServerSideAccountCreation and Schema:SignupExpAccountCreationImpression are examples of schemas with longer names that are used in production. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I just moved it back so we can discuss. ping: superm401?
- As for rationale: the use of Guider seems redundant. What other kind of impression could there be in GuidedTour other than a guided tour impression? The tour doesn't track page impressions and there are other schemas for button clicks etc. Remember that we're not the only ones using the schemas: guided tours is designed to be accessible to all features teams, product managers, and analysts. Making sure that names for schemas are concise and clear will be a service to anyone who needs to try and parse what is going on without hand-holding by us. We should strive for less verbose schema names whenever possible. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your argument for why "GuidedTourImpression" is more concise, but I don't see how it is more clear or would result in less hand-holding than the more explicit name "GuidedTourGuiderImpression". I think we should strive for non-ambiguity first and conciseness second. It seems clear that the rest of the schema names correspond to this pattern. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm okay with GuidedTourGuiderImpression. I don't think the extra length is really a problem here. Superm401 | Talk 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your argument for why "GuidedTourImpression" is more concise, but I don't see how it is more clear or would result in less hand-holding than the more explicit name "GuidedTourGuiderImpression". I think we should strive for non-ambiguity first and conciseness second. It seems clear that the rest of the schema names correspond to this pattern. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)