Go ahead an put it on the agenda. :-) In short, though, my answer is that if a column is meant to be unique, then we should ignore voided items (because they're really deleted), but we consider retire items (since they're still valid). This means we can use a DB unique constraint for metadata, but not for data.
-Darius On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Wyclif Luyima <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we also come up with a general convention of when to deem values as > duplicates i.e whether retired/voided rows should be ignore, i know of three > validators that i have written where i ignore retired rows when finding > duplicates and i want to fix them to disallow them but i'm waiting for your > views. > > Wyclif > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Darius Jazayeri > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Quite a bit of code has been committed to trunk, so we're basically >> committed to releasing *something* with 1.9. So, I think it *is* top >> priority to get the design sorted out, at least as far as getting us to >> something we can happily release in 1.9. >> >> -Darius >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Burke Mamlin <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> FYI -- I have a conflict and will miss the first hour (2-3pm ET) of >>> tomorrow's design call. Like Darius, I don't think we've gotten the >>> attribute stuff sorted out yet... though, it's up to you guys to decide if >>> it's our top priority. >>> >>> -Burke >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Darius Jazayeri < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I would not say the attribute stuff is sorted out. We should probably >>>> spend ~ an hour on that, but: >>>> * we have to time-box it so we can talk about other topics too >>>> * we are fast approaching the point where further discussion is going to >>>> delay the 1.9 alpha release. so if we can reach consensus on tomorrow's >>>> design call, that would be very very good. >>>> >>>> -Darius >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Ben Wolfe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do we have anything that has come up this week that would benefit from >>>>> an actual discussion on the call this week? The attribute stuff seems to >>>>> be >>>>> sorted out, although it took 374 emails to do it... >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/RES/Design+Forum >>>>> http://notes.openmrs.org/Design-Forum-2011-09-28 >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Click here to >>>>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>>>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Click here to >>>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Click here to >>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >> > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
