The CREATED_BY and UPDATED_BY columns are ones we add to all tables for audit purposes. We don't associate them with any business logic nor do we reason out any logic for having or not having those columns. Thanks Nuwan, for the clarification. But I think it's redundant if UPDATED_BY column has the same info as CREATED_BY. However this will be useful if we allow to update a comment to a person other than the owner.
Also interested in knowing who will get the right to edit/delete comments. Is the comment owner only? Or provider has the right to edit/delete a particular comment in case of irrelevant or misleading comments? Sorry if this has been discussed already in the review which I missed. Thanks & Regards, Ishara Cooray On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote: > The CREATED_BY and UPDATED_BY columns are ones we add to all tables for > audit purposes. We don't associate them with any business logic nor do we > reason out any logic for having or not having those columns. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM Wasura Wattearachchi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Ishara, >> >> Thank you for pointing this out. >> >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:42 AM Ishara Cooray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Wasura, >>> >>> I think PARENT_COMMENT_ID should have a default value because first >>> comment does not have a associated parent comment. >>> >>> When we are inserting a parent comment it will not have a >> PARENT_COMMENT_ID. So this may throw an error due to violation of >> Referential Integrity Constraint. So I thought not to have any constraint >> for PARENT_COMMENT_ID and we discussed this yesterday during the code >> review. >> >> >>> Since there are two fields CREATED_BY and UPDATED_BY I guess comments >>> can be updated(edit/delete) by someone other than the owner. >>> >> >> +1 for this. I must handle this in the logic when updating a comment. I >> will look into this matter. >> >>> Appreciate if you clarify the expected behavior. >>> >>> >>> Thanks & Regards, >>> Ishara Cooray >>> >> >> Thank you! >> >>> >>> 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> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Wasura Wattearachchi >> Software Engineer Intern | WSO2 >> >> Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Mobile: +94775396038 >> <http://wso2.com/signature> >> > > > -- > *Nuwan Dias* | Director | WSO2 Inc. > (m) +94 777 775 729 | (e) [email protected] > [image: Signature.jpg] >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
