It is irrational to claim that I am disregarding anything.
I do not think you addressed how there are other data source types where it makes far more sense for them to differ. Nor took consolation in that dataSourceName is available as a querying tool. But what I'm saying is irrational - that is, impossible to reason with - is not addressing the merits of the design, it was also disregarding the simple solutions to what you were attempting to bring about: the renaming of the device name of all the points.
Did I claim that it was not simple to copy data sources?
It is quite simple to copy data sources using the legacy web interface. I don't think I need to explain to you how is is done. Indeed, if the copy is given a new name before saving, all of the data points have the correct data source name.
You said this, which i quoted for context:
To create a new machine, it is quite convenient to simply copy the data sources and rename them. Requiring that all the data points be edited seems a unnecessary waste of effort. If data sources are copied and renamed, and the data points are not edited, queries by data source name and data point name now return two results - one for the original data source an done for the copy.
Maybe I misunderstood
If data sources are copied and renamed, and the data points are not edited, queries by data source name and data point name now return two results - one for the original data source an done for the copy
to imply your copying strategy (because there are multiple) was not getting the points the device name you sought.
Perhaps also I should quote
Why does it matter?
Replicating a machine might easily be done by copying the data sources and renaming them. If I have to recreate each one from scratch, I'm going to have to look for another vendor.
I am quite capable of writing such a script myself, thank you. It just seems like something that should not be necessary,
Might I recommend the data source audit event? You can get the data source name from the
var eventMessage = event.getMessage(); If you want to engage the discussion of its function on other data sources, maybe this thread wouldn't be fraying. But, I would say from your first response to me in this thread it is clear you have been on a course toward what you already believed should be so, which is why you did not engage the reasoning then or now, which is irrationality defined.
No matter how easy it is, it makes no sense to have to do it each time a Modbus I/P or virtual data source is copied. Bear in mind that I have to train others to do this.
The point of my original question deals with renaming data sources appearing unnecessarily difficult, not copying data sources.
Here's some visual aids for the necessary few clicks and typing required additionally:
You brought the spice to this thread. You didn't appreciate the first response was someone else saying they appreciate the current functionality. I would encourage you to rethink the combativeness you seem to think belongs here, and the lack of engagement with the responses the thread got.