Fix camel case in some methods' names

[GutoVeronezi]

Description

Fix camel case in some methods' names.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

[GutoVeronezi]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@GutoVeronezi a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result: ✖️ el7 ✖️ el8 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 2299

[sureshanaparti]

code LGTM

[sureshanaparti]

Hi @GutoVeronezi Is this good to go in 4.16.1? If so, please rebase with 4.16.

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 2303

[DaanHoogland]

Looks good and should be done. One caveat is that some bean handling third party libraries may have required these to be in a different case and the names where on purpose. I do not know of these cases to be so.

[GabrielBrascher]

LGTM

[GutoVeronezi]

Looks good and should be done. One caveat is that some bean handling third party libraries may have required these to be in a different case and the names where on purpose. I do not know of these cases to be so.

Hey @DaanHoogland, thanks. These beans don't seem to be the case you mentioned, as they only handle our own packages.

Note: In case the beans that address these cases don't have javadoc, I think we should put some javadoc in them, explaining why they are written in different ways.

[GutoVeronezi]

Hi @GutoVeronezi Is this good to go in 4.16.1? If so, please rebase with 4.16.

Hey @sureshanaparti, I'm good with it in main only, thanks.

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[SadiJr]

Code LGTM

[blueorangutan]

Trillian test result (tid-3014)
Environment: kvm-centos7 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server 7
Total time taken: 32758 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr5898-t3014-kvm-centos7.zip
Smoke tests completed. 92 look OK, 0 have errors
Only failed tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[GutoVeronezi]

Merging it based in the tests results and 5 approvals.

[yadvr]

Lgtm but one caveat, the getters and setters Methods are dynamically used during runtime to get the Field, were the affected APIs manually tested @GutoVeronezi? (such changes are not caught by smoketests that don't check api response for all keys)

[GutoVeronezi]

@rohityadavcloud, yes, they were tested. The behavior is kept.