TrackingCode vs TrackingNumber

[Joe Eckard]

ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which should  
really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
"trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
"trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to describe  
something completely different.

I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
there any objections to this change?

-Joe

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Joe,

This is a pity in such case but you should also provide a mean for legacy update
Please see http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/Upgrading+OFBiz+from+earlier+revisions

Thanks
Jacques

From: "Joe Eckard" <[hidden email]>

> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which should  
> really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to describe  
> something completely different.
>
> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
> there any objections to this change?
>
> -Joe

[David E Jones]

To me this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to change the field  
name.

Did you run into some big confusion between the terms "tracking code"  
and "tracking number"? In a way I don't like tracking number because  
most tracking "numbers" aren't really numbers, they include alpha  
letters and sometimes punctuation too.

I must admit though that I've never run into anything like this sort  
of confusion or any sort of related conflict in terms. Is there  
something online somewhere that my be helpful for me, and others  
similarly uniformed (if there are any)?

-David


On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:

> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which should  
> really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to  
> describe something completely different.
>
> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
> there any objections to this change?
>
> -Joe

[BJ Freeman]

I was confused for a while
I can see your point about code and number
how about type added one for shipping the other for marketing.

David E Jones sent the following on 10/27/2008 1:08 PM:

>
> To me this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to change the field name.
>
> Did you run into some big confusion between the terms "tracking code"
> and "tracking number"? In a way I don't like tracking number because
> most tracking "numbers" aren't really numbers, they include alpha
> letters and sometimes punctuation too.
>
> I must admit though that I've never run into anything like this sort of
> confusion or any sort of related conflict in terms. Is there something
> online somewhere that my be helpful for me, and others similarly
> uniformed (if there are any)?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:
>
>> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which should
>> really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field
>> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name
>> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to describe
>> something completely different.
>>
>> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are
>> there any objections to this change?
>>
>> -Joe
>
>
>

[Joe Eckard]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 4:08 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> To me this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to change the field  
> name.
>
> Did you run into some big confusion between the terms "tracking  
> code" and "tracking number"? In a way I don't like tracking number  
> because most tracking "numbers" aren't really numbers, they include  
> alpha letters and sometimes punctuation too.
>

No, nothing like that - I just wasn't sure why we refer to this  
identifier as "trackingIdNumber" in the ShipmentRouteSegment entity,  
"trackingNumber" in the OrderItemShipGroup entity, and "trackingCode"  
in the ShipmentPackageRouteSeg entity. I think that all three are  
describing the same thing.

Also, I agree that "tracking ID" would have been a better choice for  
everyone to somehow agree on, however... see below


> I must admit though that I've never run into anything like this sort  
> of confusion or any sort of related conflict in terms. Is there  
> something online somewhere that my be helpful for me, and others  
> similarly uniformed (if there are any)?
>

In all of the documentation / advertising / help sections / FAQs /  
confirmation emails, etc. I have read, this identifier is called a  
tracking number.
If you google "tracking number", the first results are pages from the  
four main carriers that all refer to this identifier as a tracking  
number.
If you look at the existing code in OFBiz, it is already referred to  
as a tracking number in most places, but mapped back to trackingCode  
for the package route segment.
The Fedex and UPS APIs accept / return this identifier explicitly as  
TrackingNumber.

Actually, it feels a little bizarre even stopping to write this -  
maybe because the term is just ingrained in my vocabulary, and I think  
I may be misreading some sarcasm?

In any case, the reason I brought this up is that I am working on some  
code dealing with shipments, packages and tracking numbers and it  
seemed like a clear-cut, genuine naming inconsistency that should be  
corrected before any more code was written to follow it.

> -David
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:
>
>> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which  
>> should really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
>> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
>> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to  
>> describe something completely different.
>>
>> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
>> there any objections to this change?
>>
>> -Joe

[Andrew Zeneski-2]

Joe,

I agree with you 100%. When I think of tracking numbers I think of  
tracking shipments, when I think of tracking codes I think of tracking  
URLs and referrers, usually in some sort of marketing campaign.

I think what you propose is to change this to be consistent.  
Consistency is always a good thing, and lack of consistency leads to  
confusion and incorrect implementations.

I agree with this change. Keep in mind though, when changing this  
field, it will require and upgrade path. Keeping the old field and  
providing a way to migrate the old data to the new field.

Just my two cents.

Andrew

On Oct 28, 2008, at 2:25 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:

>
> On Oct 27, 2008, at 4:08 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> To me this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to change the field  
>> name.
>>
>> Did you run into some big confusion between the terms "tracking  
>> code" and "tracking number"? In a way I don't like tracking number  
>> because most tracking "numbers" aren't really numbers, they include  
>> alpha letters and sometimes punctuation too.
>>
>
> No, nothing like that - I just wasn't sure why we refer to this  
> identifier as "trackingIdNumber" in the ShipmentRouteSegment entity,  
> "trackingNumber" in the OrderItemShipGroup entity, and  
> "trackingCode" in the ShipmentPackageRouteSeg entity. I think that  
> all three are describing the same thing.
>
> Also, I agree that "tracking ID" would have been a better choice for  
> everyone to somehow agree on, however... see below
>
>
>> I must admit though that I've never run into anything like this  
>> sort of confusion or any sort of related conflict in terms. Is  
>> there something online somewhere that my be helpful for me, and  
>> others similarly uniformed (if there are any)?
>>
>
> In all of the documentation / advertising / help sections / FAQs /  
> confirmation emails, etc. I have read, this identifier is called a  
> tracking number.
> If you google "tracking number", the first results are pages from  
> the four main carriers that all refer to this identifier as a  
> tracking number.
> If you look at the existing code in OFBiz, it is already referred to  
> as a tracking number in most places, but mapped back to trackingCode  
> for the package route segment.
> The Fedex and UPS APIs accept / return this identifier explicitly as  
> TrackingNumber.
>
> Actually, it feels a little bizarre even stopping to write this -  
> maybe because the term is just ingrained in my vocabulary, and I  
> think I may be misreading some sarcasm?
>
> In any case, the reason I brought this up is that I am working on  
> some code dealing with shipments, packages and tracking numbers and  
> it seemed like a clear-cut, genuine naming inconsistency that should  
> be corrected before any more code was written to follow it.
>
>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:
>>
>>> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which  
>>> should really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
>>> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
>>> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to  
>>> describe something completely different.
>>>
>>> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
>>> there any objections to this change?
>>>
>>> -Joe
>

[David E Jones]

Nope, no sarcasm intended. It just doesn't seem worth it to change  
something that isn't causing a problem when the change WILL create  
problems. Everyone with old data who updates will have to move the  
data from the old column to the new column, or forget to and have it  
disappear for them, just to be able to call it "tracking number"  
instead of "tracking code".

And we're not talking about some abstract disconnected field, we're  
talking about a field on the ShipmentPackageRouteSegment entity.

Also keep in mind that this is not just used for the common carriers  
and for consumer shipments, but also for shipping by train and ship  
and private truck and such.

Either way, I'd say no, unless there is some serious confusion that is  
causing problems there is no reason to change it and create problems.

Is it inconsistent, yes. Is it causing a problem?

-David


On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:

>
> On Oct 27, 2008, at 4:08 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> To me this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to change the field  
>> name.
>>
>> Did you run into some big confusion between the terms "tracking  
>> code" and "tracking number"? In a way I don't like tracking number  
>> because most tracking "numbers" aren't really numbers, they include  
>> alpha letters and sometimes punctuation too.
>>
>
> No, nothing like that - I just wasn't sure why we refer to this  
> identifier as "trackingIdNumber" in the ShipmentRouteSegment entity,  
> "trackingNumber" in the OrderItemShipGroup entity, and  
> "trackingCode" in the ShipmentPackageRouteSeg entity. I think that  
> all three are describing the same thing.
>
> Also, I agree that "tracking ID" would have been a better choice for  
> everyone to somehow agree on, however... see below
>
>
>> I must admit though that I've never run into anything like this  
>> sort of confusion or any sort of related conflict in terms. Is  
>> there something online somewhere that my be helpful for me, and  
>> others similarly uniformed (if there are any)?
>>
>
> In all of the documentation / advertising / help sections / FAQs /  
> confirmation emails, etc. I have read, this identifier is called a  
> tracking number.
> If you google "tracking number", the first results are pages from  
> the four main carriers that all refer to this identifier as a  
> tracking number.
> If you look at the existing code in OFBiz, it is already referred to  
> as a tracking number in most places, but mapped back to trackingCode  
> for the package route segment.
> The Fedex and UPS APIs accept / return this identifier explicitly as  
> TrackingNumber.
>
> Actually, it feels a little bizarre even stopping to write this -  
> maybe because the term is just ingrained in my vocabulary, and I  
> think I may be misreading some sarcasm?
>
> In any case, the reason I brought this up is that I am working on  
> some code dealing with shipments, packages and tracking numbers and  
> it seemed like a clear-cut, genuine naming inconsistency that should  
> be corrected before any more code was written to follow it.
>
>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Joe Eckard wrote:
>>
>>> ShipmentPackageRouteSeg has a field called trackingCode which  
>>> should really be trackingNumber (see: OrderItemShipGroup field  
>>> "trackingNumber" & standard industry terminology). The field name  
>>> "trackingCode" is used in the marketing entities and code to  
>>> describe something completely different.
>>>
>>> I created a patch for this, and it touches quite a few files - are  
>>> there any objections to this change?
>>>
>>> -Joe
>