Copy to new graph default name issue

Prerequisites

• [X ] Put an X between the brackets on this line if you have done all of the following:
  • Running the latest version of Constellation
  • Attached the Support Package via Help > Support Package
  • Checked the FAQs: https://github.com/constellation-app/constellation/wiki/FAQ
  • Checked that your issue isn’t already filed: https://github.com/constellation-app/constellation/issues
  • Checked that there is not already a module that provides the described functionality: https://github.com/constellation-app/constellation/wiki/Catalogue-of-Repositories

Description

Creating a new graph, and selecting “Copy to New Graph” will create a new graph successfully, but rename the graph as the next graph number appended. This does not appear to be intuitive that it is a copy.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open Constellation
2. Open new graph
3. Copy to new graph

Expected behaviour: New graph is opened and named incrementally. analyticgraph1 is copied to new graph named analyticgraph2

Actual behaviour: New graph is opened and new graph number is appended. analyticgraph1 is copied to new graph named analyticgraph12

Reproduces how often: 100%

Additional Information

N/A

[arcturus2]

@aldebaran30701 I’ve had a chat to @cygnus-x-1 about this and I’ve had a re-think about this. I guess that just because no one has complained it doesn’t mean there isn’t anything wrong.

@cygnus-x-1 suggested maybe having a - before appending the increment number should be a little bit clearer than analyticgraph1234 perhaps.

I don’t agree with the idea of having special logic to inspect the graph name and if it happens to have a number then increment it in the copied graph.

I take this back. If you want to pursue this or another idea then go for it and I’ll be happy to see what you come up with. I think at the time this was implemented, it was determined too much of a hassle to keep track of the number of graphs open and append the right number and a simple incrementing counter was “sufficient”.

If you do decide to append " - copy" then to solve the problem of preventing long graph names like “analyticgraph - copy - copy” can the same thinking of incrementing a number be used so it will be something like “analyticgraph - copy”, “analyticgraph - copy 2”, “analyticgraph - copy 3”?

[GCHQDeveloper601]

Looking at picking this ticket up, looks like the logic here gets a little tricky as it’s used for both brand new graphs and the copy method and there is no way to differentiate between the copy vs a new graph. The name passed in is simply a “type” and the counter increments regardless if a number is used at all. Would removing the number be acceptable if there isn’t currently a graph with the same name?

i.e. first graph = analyticgraph second graph = analyticgraph1 yet another new graph = analyticgraph(++i) copy from first graph = analyticgraph - copy copy from copy = analyticgraph - copy 1 copy form second copy = analyticgraph - copy 2

Does this sound like a sound way forward? In order to make this work it may need another method with a property if it’s a copy or a way to look through the other names and see if there is already a file with the name of what is trying to be created.