Should I avoid creating a variable with shorter name for a constant?

Question

suppose I have code like this

someFunction:function(userId){
  var url=SomeClass.SomeNetworkConnector.SOME_URL;
  if(url !== undefined && userId !== undefined){
    this.openURL(url+"?userid="+userId);
  }
}

Initially I think the name of actual constant SomeClass.SomeNetworkConnector.SOME_URL is too long, so I use a variable with shorter name to hold it, and then use it later.

But I'm struggling if I should do this, my reason to oppose above is : SomeClass.SomeNetworkConnector.SOME_URL is already a well defined name of the constant, is it misleading to rename it as another variable? Should I always use SomeClass.SomeNetworkConnector.SOME_URL instead of creating a shorter variable name?

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 07 '18 at 07:06

This is a perfectly fine practice.

The point of having a long and detailed name for a constant exported from a library is to distinguish it from all the other URLs that might occur in your program, or any program, or in fact from all other constants in the world. It's necessary to distinguish between them, so it makes sense give it a maximally informative name. It helps establish the identity of that constant.

Within your method, the focus is not on the identity of that URL. Instead, it is on the function of the URL you are using to achieve your present, limited-scope purpose. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to use a short name like url for to indicate "the endpoint that I'm currently talking to". If one day your code switches providers, the external constant would change to another long name, but the local variable should probably still be called url.

Should I avoid creating a variable with shorter name for a constant?

1 Answers1