Renaming literal values for existng fields
I read about one user who renamed the literal values to match the label value as a way to workaround the issue where the literal value appears in query outputs.
I tested this with existing fields and had to create new values for the fields, then do a mass update to migrate work items from the old value to the new.
It appears to have worked fine but I'm curious if there's anything negative to doing this that I'm not seeing yet?
I tested this with existing fields and had to create new values for the fields, then do a mass update to migrate work items from the old value to the new.
It appears to have worked fine but I'm curious if there's anything negative to doing this that I'm not seeing yet?
One answer
Hi Michael,
I have seen that approach a few times. I don't think there are issues with it. Best would be to start with the changes done to the template in the beginning.
One effect I was thinking of is that there is a gap in the data warehouse data when you change the enumeration literal ID's. But the data warehouse probably rather stores the value and not the ID.
I have seen that approach a few times. I don't think there are issues with it. Best would be to start with the changes done to the template in the beginning.
One effect I was thinking of is that there is a gap in the data warehouse data when you change the enumeration literal ID's. But the data warehouse probably rather stores the value and not the ID.