tsp, use TCGC's name for model property schema and parameter name

[haolingdong-msft]

Fix #2731

Code Changes:

1. use TCGC's name for model property schema name, this would apply to optional literal case.
2. use TCGC's parameter name

[haolingdong-msft]

Hi @srnagar, we now leverage TCGC to generate the name for optional literal enum. And their logic is to concat the literal value to the enum's name. e.g. the definitiion is optionalLiteral?: "optionalLiteral", so another OptionalLiteral is append to the name. Please let me know if this is acceptable or not.

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Can we now remove the Model/Scalar related types from getName, as we should be using TCGC names from Model?

autorest.java/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts

Line 2246 in 8945013

target: Model | Union | UnionVariant | Enum | EnumMember | ModelProperty | Scalar | Operation | undefined,

We probably still need ModelProperty and Operation as they relates to op.

Also, if above is true, we should be able to remove the "template" related code and "empty name" related code as well.

autorest.java/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts

Lines 2274 to 2291 in 8945013

	// if no projectedName and friendlyName found, return the name of the target (including special handling for template)
	if (
	target.kind === "Model" &&
	target.templateMapper &&
	target.templateMapper.args &&
	target.templateMapper.args.length > 0
	) {
	const tspName = getTypeName(target, this.typeNameOptions);
	const newName = getNameForTemplate(target);
	this.logWarning(`Rename TypeSpec Model '${tspName}' to '${newName}'`);
	return newName;
	}
	if (!target.name && nameHint) {
	const newName = nameHint;
	this.logWarning(`Rename anonymous TypeSpec ${target.kind} to '${newName}'`);
	return newName;
	}

[haolingdong-msft]

Can we now remove the Model/Scalar related types from getName, as we should be using TCGC names from Model?

autorest.java/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts

Line 2246 in 8945013

target: Model | Union | UnionVariant | Enum | EnumMember | ModelProperty | Scalar | Operation | undefined,

We probably still need ModelProperty and Operation as they relates to op.
Also, if above is true, we should be able to remove the "template" related code and "empty name" related code as well.

autorest.java/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts

Lines 2274 to 2291 in 8945013

	// if no projectedName and friendlyName found, return the name of the target (including special handling for template)
	if (
	target.kind === "Model" &&
	target.templateMapper &&
	target.templateMapper.args &&
	target.templateMapper.args.length > 0
	) {
	const tspName = getTypeName(target, this.typeNameOptions);
	const newName = getNameForTemplate(target);
	this.logWarning(`Rename TypeSpec Model '${tspName}' to '${newName}'`);
	return newName;
	}
	if (!target.name && nameHint) {
	const newName = nameHint;
	this.logWarning(`Rename anonymous TypeSpec ${target.kind} to '${newName}'`);
	return newName;
	}

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried locally, we can remove Scalar and undefined, but probabyly cannot remove Model for now, because there are places that uses Model type:

1. https://github.com/Azure/autorest.java/blob/main/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts#L1590
2. https://github.com/Azure/autorest.java/blob/main/typespec-extension/src/code-model-builder.ts#L1341 (body is Model | ModelProperty)

[weidongxu-microsoft]

#1 is just a trace/log, and it is already a Model, you can get TCGC model and use its name (just don't convert to ObjectSchema)
#2 is the uncompleted migrate, it should use TCGC model name, if Union is Model (you can call getName if it is ModelProperty; just do a if/else)

[haolingdong-msft]

Yes, I can do if/else, just thinking we can get rid of the whole getName function when integrating with sdkPackage, so I don't have very strong intention of modifying the logics. But I'm fine of doing this in this pr.

[weidongxu-microsoft]

Yes, I can do if/else, just thinking we can get rid of the whole getName function when integrating with sdkPackage, so I don't have very strong intention of modifying the logics. But I'm fine of doing this in this pr.

If you can finish the work next week, I am good with "no very strong intention". If you cannot finish next month, it is good incentive for me to clean that up.
The point is this getName could be vastly simplified, if it does not need to work on Model.