[make:entity] helper message with two classes having the same name under different namespaces

[jeromegxj]

When working with similar class names under two different namespaces, the helper message in relation lost its interest.

A console log is worth a thousand words:

$ bin/console make:entity

 Class name of the entity to create or update (e.g. DeliciousPizza):
 > Order

 Your entity already exists! So let's add some new fields!

 New property name (press <return> to stop adding fields):
 > logisticOrders

 Field type (enter ? to see all types) [string]:
 > relation

 What class should this entity be related to?:
 > Logistic\Order

What type of relationship is this?
 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  Type         Description                                                        
 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  ManyToOne    Each Order relates to (has) one Order.                             
               Each Order can relate to (can have) many Order objects.            
                                                                                  
  OneToMany    Each Order can relate to (can have) many Order objects.            
               Each Order relates to (has) one Order.                             
                                                                                  
  ManyToMany   Each Order can relate to (can have) many Order objects.            
               Each Order can also relate to (can also have) many Order objects.  
                                                                                  
  OneToOne     Each Order relates to (has) exactly one Order.                     
               Each Order also relates to (has) exactly one Order.                
 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Relation type? [ManyToOne, OneToMany, ManyToMany, OneToOne]:
 > ???

The message should come with the fully qualified class name.
I'm willing to work on this one if you think it's worth it.

[jrushlow]

Howdy @jeromegxj - I'm not opposed to showing the full class names if both classes contain the same "word" as shown in your example above. E.g. Many Orders to One Logistics\\Orders -> yes show the FQCN. But if Many Note to One Task -> no do not show the FQCN

I think doing this conditionally will keep the noise down to a minimum in the console. PR Welcome!

[jeromegxj]

I'm going to work on it next week!

In the meantime I've come up with another similar problem: it happens when you do a self relation, the wording shown by maker bundle does not help in this case.

bin/console m:entity Bag
 Your entity already exists! So let's add some new fields!

 New property name (press <return> to stop adding fields):
 > parent

 Field type (enter ? to see all types) [string]:
 > relation

 What class should this entity be related to?:
 > Bag

What type of relationship is this?
 ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Type         Description
 ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------
  ManyToOne    Each Bag relates to (has) one Bag.
               Each Bag can relate to (can have) many Bag objects.

  OneToMany    Each Bag can relate to (can have) many Bag objects.
               Each Bag relates to (has) one Bag.

  ManyToMany   Each Bag can relate to (can have) many Bag objects.
               Each Bag can also relate to (can also have) many Bag objects.

  OneToOne     Each Bag relates to (has) exactly one Bag.
               Each Bag also relates to (has) exactly one Bag.
 ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------

 Relation type? [ManyToOne, OneToMany, ManyToMany, OneToOne]:
 >

The issue looks similar, but I feel it's not exactly the same.

Is this a legit one? Should I open another issue? I'll be willing to work on this one too if it makes sense.

[jrushlow]

Ya I don't think that is same problem - When doing self referencing relations, I'm not sure how we could (or even if we should) attempt to differentiate between the "parent" and "child" classes seeing as they're the same class... I'm not opposed to a PR if we have some useful way to convey a difference - but at the same time, I'm 100% with leaving this as is seeing as it's an edge case where the output is as expected...