Hi Wasura, I think PARENT_COMMENT_ID should have a default value because first comment does not have a associated parent comment.
Since there are two fields CREATED_BY and UPDATED_BY I guess comments can be updated(edit/delete) by someone other than the owner. Appreciate if you clarify the expected behavior. Thanks & Regards, Ishara Cooray On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:54 PM Wasura Wattearachchi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > According to what we have discussed today during the code review, I added > a new attribute named ENTRY_POINT to distinguish the role of the person, > based on the entry point - whether the particular person initiates the > comment from the API Store or the API Publisher. Following is the ERD for > that (You can find the newly added attribute in green colour). > > > > > Following is the corresponding *table* and the data types. > > > AM_API_COMMENTS > > UUID > > VARCHAR(255) > > PRIMARY KEY > > COMMENT_TEXT > > TEXT > > USER_IDENTIFIER > > VARCHAR(255) > > CATEGORY > > VARCHAR(20) > > DEFAULT ‘General’ > > PARENT_COMMENT_ID > > VARCHAR(255) > > ENTRY_POINT > > VARCHAR(20) > > API_ID > > VARCHAR(255) > > FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES AM_API (UUID) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE > > CREATED_BY > > VARCHAR(100) > > CREATED_TIME > > TIMESTAMP > > DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP > > UPDATED_BY > > VARCHAR(100) > > UPDATED_TIME > > TIMESTAMP > > DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP > > > I would much appreciate if you can provide feedback and suggestions. > > > Thank you! > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM Ishara Cooray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the clarification Wasura. >> >> In C5 we have used *USER_IDENTIFIER* in below APIM tables. >> AM_USER_NAME_MAPPING >> AM_API_RATINGS >> AM_API_COMMENTS >> >> But in C5 UM tables we still have used *USER_ID*. >> >> AUTH_UM_PASSWORD_INFO >> AUTH_UM_USER_GROUP >> AUTH_UM_USER_ATTRIBUTES >> >> Is there any particular reason for that? >> >> I am +1 to use USER_ID in apim tables as well. >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Ishara Cooray >> Senior Software Engineer >> Mobile : +9477 262 9512 >> WSO2, Inc. | http://wso2.com/ >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Wasura Wattearachchi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ishara, >>> >>> I agree with you. It is better to have USER_ID rather than >>> USER_IDENTIFIER. But there is a problem. I checked all the tables in >>> the database again and found that there are some tables which have >>> USER_IDENTIFIER column (which is used to symbolize the username of the >>> current user like in AM_API_COMMENTS table). >>> So if I change the USER_IDENTIFIER field to USER_ID in my table >>> (AM_API_COMMENTS) then the consistency of the database will be lost, >>> because other tables have it as USER_IDENTIFIER while AM_API_COMMENTS has >>> it as USER_ID. >>> >>> So I think it is better to keep it this way as USER_IDENTIFIER without >>> doing any changes. What are the ideas of others? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 5:47 AM Ishara Cooray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Wasura, >>>> We can simplify USER_IDENTIFIER field as USER_ID >>>> >>>> And also I think we need to categorize comments as "Bug", "Feature >>>> Request" or "General". By default it should be "General. >>>> >>>> What is the way that we identify the category of a particular comment? >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wasura Wattearachchi >>> Software Engineer Intern | WSO2 >>> >>> Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Mobile: +94775396038 >>> >> >> > > -- > Wasura Wattearachchi > Software Engineer Intern | WSO2 > > Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Mobile: +94775396038 > <http://wso2.com/signature> >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
