We have three such fields for Delivery Services, afaik :P ________________________________________ From: Jason Tucker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 7:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Adding a text field in Servers config of TP
I'm actually a fan of arbitrary text boxes for more than just server objects. I've been hoping for something like this in delivery service objects as well, as this sort of field can be used to help document unusual/custom/snowflake behavior which may not necessarily be obvious to those who come later with the intention of troubleshooting. Should be used for communicating with humans, rather than systems. In lieu of versioning of configs, it could be used to keep a change log for the object as well. But, again, that's more applicable to DS objects rather than Server objects, I think. __Jason On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:48 PM Gray, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm -1 depending on what the intended use case is. > > Generic text fields should only be useful to human operators. In the case > where you intend anything to programmatically access that information and > it's generally useful, you're better off with specific columns per point of > data. This is how we ended up with unparsable, yet critical, data in the > comment fields of physical location table when we should have added real > columns. The example in the issue is delivery services. The description > field that I think is being referenced is one of LongDesc, LongDesc_1, or > LongDesc_2 in the database. Columns should have one purpose and one > meaning that is clear to a new developer working in the code and > conceptually plausible to anyone else trying to understand how the system > works. One compromise, I'm not a huge fan of, would be to allow for > arbitrary structured data via a column of type jsonb instead of text. > That's not a great answer from a usability or db theory perspective, but > it's slightly better than regex parsing. > > Jonathan G > > > > On 11/19/18, 3:09 PM, "Dave Neuman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1, I am fine with it. That table already has a lot of columns, > what's one > more!? > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Sounds like server "notes" or a server "description". Seems like a > fair > > ask. I don't see the harm in adding an optional column to the server > table > > with type=text for this data. > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:16 PM Anuj Tyagi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hello Traffic Controllers, > > > > > > I discussed this with a couple of ATC users. We have multiple > > > Description/text fields in Delivery Service configuration of TP. > > Similarly, > > > We should also have one text field in servers configuration. My > use case > > is > > > to keep the service/serial id of the servers and any specific info > for a > > > server for which no field is available. > > > > > > I have created an issue on GitHub for it earlier: > > > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/2764 > > > <https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/2764> > > > > > > It's not a major change so shouldn't be a problem. If everyone > agrees, > > I'd > > > be interested to add that. > > > > > > Thank you > > > Anuj Tyagi > > > > > > > >
