Wanted someone to verify if this is OK -- appears that we have multiple object names that are pointing to the same field. This occurred partially because we have auto-object creation. Basically, an old script was created an object name for a specific field (say Edit Field). This Edit Field had attributes that were changed by programming. When we re-record a new object name was created for this field. Now when we play back the original old script -- it no longer can find this New modified Edit Field --- so we re-identified the field. Therefore -- now we have two objects pointing to the same field -- Is this ok? Appears to work.
Interesting, but I disagree with your statement regarding significant field settings -- since the field in this case was a change of parent title and a component name change -- these are two attributes that we need to identify this particular object. As far as keeping one object -- the only negative that I see is that it would require us to go back thru every script ever made a do a selective search and replace -- unsure of what complications this might cause. I still feel it is easier to re-identify this field going forward, but wanted to make sure that it won't cause other huge problems.
You could still re-identify the new field from the current Object Map entry. If you do this instead of creating a new one then the same attach name will be used but will now contain the changed information.
As a result you would have only one object map entry and you wouldn't have to change any other scripts. Unless, of course, the field has changed properties in only some of the occurances. If this is the case then you would definatley need multiple entries as they are different objects.
Automation and Test Consultancy