It would be very helpful if Label or Name could be automatically copied into 'Description' of elements and actions. 

Sometimes, developers forget to write descriptions on the elements and actions and these descriptions could be filled by default with Label or Name text.

This would help following the best practices. 

Hi Inês,

Although I understand your point, I don't think that would be the right approach because the description is meant to be filled in with meaningful, business information about the attribute/action (What does it do? What is it used for?), so it's easy to understand by newcomers, or even your future self. That context can only be given by the developer, you see?

If we just copied the value from another place, what would be the point of having a Description attribute?

What do you think?

Cheers!

I agree with Ricardo in this case.I understand the annoyance that architecture dashboard is asking to fill in descriptions for everything.

However, it IS a bit silly that you also need to fill in the description of the Primary Keys.

So imho, there could be some intelligence introduced regarding the descriptions.

I agree with all the replies, I actually created another idea a while ago that could generate less Arch Dashboard findings: White list Names for architecture dashboard rule "Missing description on public element"

Hi Ricardo,

Yes, i get your point and do agree. However, all descriptions are editable so anyone can change them later.

Like it was said, the problem is that in the architecture dashboard's reports the missing descriptions are always listed ("Missing description on public element | Required description on public elements").

Many times developers don't fill descriptions and the time spent filling all these descriptions is high.

Generating fewer AD warnings in these cases would also be helpful.

Hi Daniel Tavares,

My opinion is that, if Service Studio filled in the descriptions for you, you would end up with completely meaningless descriptions, which you wouldn't probably care anymore because Architecture Dashboard would tell you everything is fine. That would be going the easy way, and you wouldn't be learning anything to improve as a developer.

For me, the correct mindset is filling in descriptions as you code because it would be less time-consuming later on. Plus, you are already preventing new AD findings from being created, don't you agree?

What do you think?

Cheers!

I would say that the description needs to be filled manually, the idea is to provide a good description that will help you to generate good documentation. This is only time-consuming if not done during the creation of the elements.

In my opinion, some situations could be excluded from the findings of AD, such as Primary Keys, and for this, the way to do it can be one of the two, automatic description or white list in AD or both.

When any object created (server actions, screen etc), need to come with default description

At current stage when any of the object (screen, actions etc) created, decription property is blank. AI mentor creates tech debt for missing description if it is public. Many times in flow of the development, developer may tend to forget to ass description.

So default description will save time. If needed it can be changed