Feature - Improved file naming convention for duplicated file names

Edit: I just found out that the proposed naming convention (“Suggested Improvement” part) was not showing. Probably because I used “<>” to frame the name’s parameters. I have fixed it.



This is a minor feature request as it is not an issue for the moment. However, I suspect that it could become one and I assume that I would be nice to have in the future.

To answer Internal Controls Audits, our teams are generating evidence and result files through automation. The outputted result files generally have similar names for different Internal Controls’ Audits (e.g. result.xxx).

Faced issue raising a request for a new feature:
We found out that it is not possible to upload two files with the same name across the whole application. For example, if I want to upload two result files named result.csv to answer two audits on two different internal controls, one file will be uploaded as result.csv while the other will be renamed result1.csv. An ID (here, 1) will be appended to the file name to ensure uniqueness. The same will happen if I attach my first result.csv to an Audit and the other one to a Compliance Package Item.
We have quite a few Internal Controls and need to perform frequent auditing. As said above, most of the results used as proofs follow a common template, with a common name. I am therefore concerned that we are going to end up with unnecessarily long IDs appended to file names, and that we could eventually run out of available IDs.

Suggested improvement:
I would like to propose the following naming convention for duplicated attachment names instead of the current [Attachment Name][ID]:
[Internal Control Name]_[Attachment Upload Date]_[Attachment Name]

Other solutions could be to:

  1. Have a file hierarchy in place, where each Module would be identified by one folder, each Module’s Section by a sub-folder, and each Section’s item by a sub-sub folder (which could be created dynamically the first time an attachment is uploaded to this particular item). That approach, I believe, would also facilitate the backup of files and implementation of bulk file download features.

  2. Similarly to 1., we could forget about the file hierarchy and simply create one folder the first time an attachment is uploaded to a particular item. This folder will then contain all the future attachments for this item.


i would not worry about that, its 4 byte number. pretty large stuff!

Yes I am not too worried as well, that’s why this is a pretty low priority change IMHO.
However, I would still prefer a more comprehensive naming convention providing some added value information to the current generated ID.