At the moment nobody is really sure what is the proper term “StashID” or “Stash ID” and its usage in interface, documentation and even the development channels is all over the place. Lets change that.
There was previous attempt, but it got nowhere.
For the UI side I believe “Stash ID” is better. From a language standpoint it makes more sense.
User ID, Order ID, Session ID, these are all examples of existing variations of of similar structure and I think it should stay in line with this.
Stash ID (and StashID) isn’t a great name, since it really should be Stash-box ID - it’s referring to an ID on a stash-box instance after all. I think it was shortened for brevity.
Eventually, I’d like to convert the whole Stash ID concept into External ID instead, which would sidestep this whole thing.
I agree. “Stash ID” infers that it’s an ID on a local Stash instance. Because it comes from a Stashbox, it should be referred to as a Stashbox ID.
I would call it “local id” and not stash id. This is very very confusing. “Stash-ID”/ “stash id” / “stashid”/ etc should be an umbrella term for all ids whether they are local or in an external DB
It’s explicitly not a local ID as it’s derived from the external database. Like was mentioned above, calling it External ID would make more sense.
Is there any local Stash ID at all?
Anyways, it would be inherently wrong to use the term “stash ID” as it describes the type of ID, and not its origin/location. [what? vs. where?]
There are internal object IDs, but they serve different purpose.