Each app has an app name used to identify the app and a package name used when it’s a dependency.
It is possible to assign the same name to two apps and to two packages. I tried and I was able to do this (on the 3rd app that depends on the two apps with the same name):
Should this be prevented with a message that says “Sorry the name you are trying to use has already been taken”?
Or is it fair to say that you only do this if you are looking for trouble, so you deserve whatever you get?
My preference is to keep the roles of ID and Description separate. IDs must be unique, but Descriptions do not have to be.
The problem, here, is that you are forced to choose by Description alone. To be sure, an ID is used internally – probably some row-id in some table – but since you can’t see it, there’s no way to tell your choices apart. That’s a recipe for confusion and mistakes. I, too, would like to see it resolved.
Yes, a warning would be good (I’ve moved this thread to Feature Requests), but having two apps with the same name (or package name) isn’t an error – it’s something you do if you’re following the production/development pattern, for example.
The actual conflict is on the package name (which you can change, independently of the app’s name, in the Dependencies dialog), so you are welcome to depend on two apps named “HashRouting” in the same app, as long as they have separate module names.
Rather than, or in addition to Warning if you depend on two apps with the same name I would Warning when you assign name that has already been used to a module