but will they even analysis it ? or they just put all the things in sandbox ?
and also some malware will need to do some action to active it.
is this even a bug ? i think it is just bad designed.
Depends if you can prove what you said. 
Sorry it is irony
As in they are hardly in control over their own virus naming conventions if they are using the services of two other AVs (at least the did, I don’t know if that is still correct). A long time ago Avast was one of these AVs.
only if the file need special attention
you can also send files direct to avast lab
https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=14433.msg1289438#msg1289438
If they use another vendors AV engine then the owner of that engine is the one that create signature and name
Eksample here
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/922bc561fe72498410d5c835715b6f7ca622d8ec96fb018ded9ec346724645ab
all those with name Trojan.GenericKD.47609888 is using Bitdefender engine
Emsisoft has a (B) after the name, meaning they use more then one engine and it was engine B that detected it
Which is exactly the irony I’m talking about, the difficulty of multiple (not just two) AV companies with different methods of detection and naming conventions to have common/the same malware names.
What is the likelihood of Engine A and B having the same malware name (if the both detected it) and that’s just two AV signature databases.
those AV that use multi engines (usually two) only show detection from one, have never seen anyone display more then one detection
That is neither here nor there, the point is they differ in the same way as virtually all other individual AV companies virus databases and the likelihood of all somehow having the same malware name or naming convention is I fear extremely unlikely. There is possibly more chance of you or I winning the lottery (and I don’t play the lottery).
My point revolves around your links about malware naming in Reply #5
Quote from extracts
“Malware names are not clear. Neither the terms related to them have a common understanding, nor the names themselves. There is no common standard. There is no institution, database or organization that has an exhaustive list of malware names and their definition.”
and
“The first attempt to make malware naming consistent was in 1991, when a committee at CARO created A New Virus Naming Convention. This was a time where all or almost all existing malware was also a virus. The naming scheme has influenced today’s detection names. Most AV vendors use the same or similar components that CARO suggested but often with their own terminology and ordering.”
Whilst this article wasn’t written in 1991 - Much has changed since 1991, in both numbers of malware variants and the way AV companies detecting them, so trying to apply a common standard is virtually impossible. hell just look at the numbers of virus signatures there are in just the avast virus signatures database ‘27,401,696’.
Assuming that other AV companies virus signature databases are of similar sizes, try having a commonalty/naming convention and you should see how futile this would be when the volume of viruses/malware is constantly increasing.