Who Still Uses SP_ for Naming?

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Who Still Uses SP_ for Naming?

  • It's a long time, I'm fighting against using "SP_" for naming procedures like this.

    In most cases we use an other (nearly same "PRO_SP", but this because company name starts with this) and also don't use dbo."PRO_SP..." if the procedure is customer specific. If customer specific we put it to a "customer"-schema, so it's easy to find out, if it's "standard"-procedure or customer-specific.

    If other colleagues don't act like this, it's often hard to find out, if a procedure can also be replaced by "standard" or where it is from.

    For me it's also good practise to have a short changelog in the procedures and functions ("PRO_FN" for scalar or "PRO_TVF" for table valued functions) that shows what "version" it is.

  • Using automation is something I've been interested in since I was a kid. What surprises me is how resistant people are to adopting any sort of automation. In my previous job we used Visual SourceSafe (please, don't throw stones), so there was no CI/CD anything. In my current job we've used TFS longer than I've been here. And we're migrating to GitHub. But the use of TFS Build/Releases is small. I suspect the same will happen with GitHub.  I don't know why people are so adamantly against automation, but they are.

    Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply