We want to start using APD App on cloud for application and we have some entities that was created using APD in PC before(Coverable, Coverage entities etc.). Now we added some elements to those entities which are not possible to be added using APD. We want to create extensions for those entities and have our modifications done there, since the changes we do that is not synced with APD will be lost during re-generation of product.
The GW recommendation in this situation is to create a new eti entity and then to change its type to etx and name to the name of the entity you wish to extend. With some additional changes directly to the xml structure we were able to get this new extention entity to compile and be recognized by the system as an extention of the right entity, however, custom fields added to it were not visible to objects of the type, which rendered them useless as storing custom fields was the whole point.
As an alternative, we manually created an extention as an extention (as opposed to a new entity being used as an extention via name and type change) - this method works fine and Automated Cloud Assurance doesn't flag it in any way.
The question is then - does the second way satisfy GW standards and will not cause future issues, or is the first method (entity used as an extention) the preferrable one and there is some way to get it to work?
Thank you in advance for any help.