I think I'm mostly +1 on the compromise of adding an arbitrary jsonb column. Then it is up to whatever downstream components might be using the column to make sure it works for their purposes. In the API we could just validate that it's actually valid JSON, and I don't think we'd need any other validation on it. Then it would be up to the operator to come up with their own versioned JSON schema for the jsonb column for their downstream components to use. Editing JSON directly via TP is not ideal, but I'm sure there could be a way to generate a usable input form given a JSON schema. The schema would be version-controlled and placed down with TP via whatever configuration management tool you're using. Then you can easily add whatever arbitrary data you want to add to a server without polluting the DB with multiple columns that aren't actually consumed by TC components. Columns like all the ilo_* ones, rack, mgmt_ip_*, etc. would be a good fit for that I think. Those columns aren't consumed by other TC components directly and are mostly just informational or consumed by things outside of Traffic Control, so maybe they'd be better off as second-class citizens.
So basically this: If the new column is consumed by a TC component for the purpose of control flow, it deserves a first-class column in the DB. If the new field is not consumed by TC components, meant to be consumed by non-TC components (e.g. configuration management), or is purely informational for human consumption, it can just be relegated to the jsonb column. What do you all think? - Rawlin On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:30 AM Gray, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > DS lifecycle tracking was supposed to modeled via DSR Comments. Also, we do > have 3 existing comment fields on a DS. They've all been co-opted for other > various purposes already. That's why they use different names in TP than in > the database. > > Jonathan G > > > On 11/20/18, 8:54 AM, "Jason Tucker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right, we do... but try reading or writing paragraphs of info in them. The > DB fields may support it, but the UI not so much. > > __Jason > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:27 AM Fieck, Brennan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
