30 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
30 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
stage: none
|
|
group: unassigned
|
|
info: To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/ux/technical-writing/#designated-technical-writers
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Renaming features
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the business asks to change the name of a feature. Broadly speaking, there are 2 approaches to that task. They basically trade between immediate effort and future complexity/bug risk:
|
|
|
|
- Complete, rename everything in the repo.
|
|
- Pros: does not increase code complexity.
|
|
- Cons: more work to execute, and higher risk of immediate bugs.
|
|
- Façade, rename as little as possible; only the user-facing content like interfaces,
|
|
documentation, error messages, etc.
|
|
- Pros: less work to execute.
|
|
- Cons: increases code complexity, creating higher risk of future bugs.
|
|
|
|
## When to choose the façade approach
|
|
|
|
The more of the following that are true, the more likely you should choose the façade approach:
|
|
|
|
- You are not confident the new name is permanent.
|
|
- The feature is susceptible to bugs (large, complex, needing refactor, etc).
|
|
- The renaming will be difficult to review (feature spans many lines, files, or repositories).
|
|
- The renaming will be disruptive in some way (database table renaming).
|
|
|
|
## Consider a façade-first approach
|
|
|
|
The façade approach is not necessarily a final step. It can (and possibly *should*) be treated as the first step, where later iterations will accomplish the complete rename.
|