Conversation
| // Subject is the object analysed by THOR. | ||
| Subject ReportableObject `json:"subject" textlog:",expand"` | ||
| // Subject is the object assessed by THOR. | ||
| Subject AssessableObject `json:"subject" textlog:",expand"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You replaced the clunky term ReportableObject with a yet more abstruse one. When we touch it now, it may be the best time to review the name in detail. Apart from the weird name, I'm mainly bothered with the point of view: in the context of an Assessment, the subject of interest is the object that triggered the assessment, but this is already appropriately called subject. However, it's not required that the type reflects this point of view. When we look at the object from outside this context, i.e., more independently, then it's just some object. We can of course not call it object (or ThorObject or similar) so we need to find something specific about it. And there is: THOR observed this thing somewhere, that's why it is reported, together with an assessment on it. So I'm thinking Observation (or something along that line, maybe ObservedObject) might be a better term. What do you think?
2 participants
No description provided.