[DISCUSS] Should we remove suffix when copy or import workflow

[Jiajie Zhong <zh...@gmail.com>]

Hey guys,

This discussion come from PR-10607[1], which currently will add
`copy_<timestamp>` or `import_<timestamp>`  when copy or import
workflow, and Xuetong was disturbed by the suffix so he submit PR to
remove them. It seems the reason we add suffix is because old arch
does not have `code` field in the database, so we have to make sure
both workflow and task name are not the same. but we already have
field `code` to identify the record in database. So I think we should
remove the suffix.

if you have any idea, please let me know in this mail thread

[1]: https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/pull/10607

-- 
Best Wish
— Jiajie

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we remove suffix when copy or import workflow

[zhuxuetong <59...@qq.com.INVALID>]

Hey guys,

I am the author of this PR and I propose the following reasons for this PR

1. Duplicate task names between different workflows will not cause conflicts

2. The task name with the copy suffix disturb the search for the task

3. In order to prevent the search task trouble, we need to remove the copy suffix in the name of each copied task, sometime the workload is very large

> 在 2022年7月6日，21:50，Jiajie Zhong <zh...@gmail.com> 写道：
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> This discussion come from PR-10607[1], which currently will add
> `copy_<timestamp>` or `import_<timestamp>`  when copy or import
> workflow, and Xuetong was disturbed by the suffix so he submit PR to
> remove them. It seems the reason we add suffix is because old arch
> does not have `code` field in the database, so we have to make sure
> both workflow and task name are not the same. but we already have
> field `code` to identify the record in database. So I think we should
> remove the suffix.
> 
> if you have any idea, please let me know in this mail thread
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/pull/10607
> 
> -- 
> Best Wish
> — Jiajie