Distinguish external from internal classes

[davimacedo]

New Feature / Enhancement Checklist

• [ X ] I am not disclosing a vulnerability.
• [ X ] I am not just asking a question.
• [ X ] I have searched through existing issues.

Current Limitation

It is currently possible to create a class called User and a class called _User. Both show up in Parse Dashboard with the name User and it causes confusion for some users when using Parse Server for the first time.

In addition to that, it is very confusing when we have to use _User or User throughout the sdks, endpoints, etc.

Feature / Enhancement Description

I believe we should change Parse Server in such a way that User and _User point out to the same thing. So no matter if we send User, or _User, via the api, they will always refer to the _User class we currently have.

Example Use Case

Alternatives / Workarounds

An alternative could be simply disallow the developers to create a User class.

3rd Party References

[mtrezza]

In terms of breaking change, I believe the "alternative" suggestion would not interfere with existing deployments but simply disallow the creation of classes that would conflict with an internal class.

So if a deployment already has User and _User, the alternative approach will not break it. The developer can at their own pace change the name of the collection. If instead we use a redirection of requests from User to _User, it is a breaking change for that deployment.

On the other hand, it is unintuitive to have to prefix internal classes with underscore, while they are displayed without underscore in the dashboard. We could also just display them in their original name in the dashboard.

[davimacedo]

Maybe we could disallow the creation of User class and deprecate existing User classes for version 5 and then do the redirect for version 6.

[mtrezza]

How would such a migration work for a live environment to migrate from User to something else before version 6? If this requires special tools beyond Parse Server that we do not provide, I don't think we can put the burden on developers. Maybe we need to add a feature for class renaming (through the dashboard) in a live environment.

Would we still store _User internally, prefixed with underscore? If we do a redirect, that seems unnecessary, but there may he other reasons to keep these classes internal, ie. with underscore.

Just to say that, I guess the simplest way to address the original issue of seeing multiple User classes in dashboard would be to mark the internal classes differently from custom classes. For example just group them at the top of the list, add a horizontal line and then display all custom classes. And we could also display internal classes with their real names in dashboard, including the underscore.

[mtrezza]

Maybe something like this:

or without underscore, but that doesn't solve the confusion that in code the system class is _User, but in dashboard it's just User, just in the top group

I agree it's not the the most elegant solution, but it may be an easy solution to fix the original issue if migrating existing deployments may be too complicated for developers.

[davimacedo]

We can go in this direction but maybe we should not allow the developers to create User and _User classes anymore. The ones that already have would continue working but we wouldn't allow it anymore for new users.

[mtrezza]

We could do that, or maybe we should keep system class names and custom class names completely separate and not influence / restrict one another, which I think was the original reason why system classes start with an underscore.

Because what happens if tomorrow a new feature introduces a system class _Chat. Will we start to restrict users from creating a custom class Chat?

Any new system class introduction could create significant migration issues for existing deployments. But allowing a _Chat and Chat class at the same time could make it much easier to migrate a custom chat feature to an internal chat feature. And from a development perspective we don't want to have to care what effects the naming of a system class could have on existing deployments.

I think any of these restrictions create the same problem:

• Prohibit users from creating Class if _Class already exists
• Redirect requests from Class to _Class
• Rename system classes _Class to Class as long term goal

So maybe the solution is to make a clear distinction for developers and say:

• System classes start with underscore
• System classes don't conflict with or restrict custom class names in any way, but if you create a custom class with the same name (without underscore), it is your responsibility to make sure you don't mix them up
• New system classes may be introduced in the future with names that are identical to your existing custom class names, but starting with a leading underscore

That means the only measure we would take from this is displaying system classes with either their real name (with underscore) in the dashboard or mark them visually differently in the dashboard, e.g. wrap them in a "System Class" group.

[mtrezza]

@davimacedo If you are fine with it, I would transfer this issue to Parse Dashboard to solve this solely by displaying internal classes differently in the dashboard.

[parse-github-assistant]

Thanks for opening this issue!

• 🎉 We are excited about your ideas for improvement!

[damianstasik]

@mtrezza I tried to experiment with grouping classes visually and for now, it seems like showing the real name would be the simplest solution:

Would you accept a PR with such change?

[mtrezza]

Sure, would you add a line to separate the internal classes, like in the screenshots in #1849 (comment)? I think it would be a helpful visual guide to faster identify internal classes.