This sounds like an Asset Management thing, not a CDN thing. We currently have a number of "Asset Management" fields (like ASNs) which aren't necessary for the CDN itself, and just asset tracking. Personally, I'd rather see us move toward the CDN being a CDN, and operators using an Asset Management system if they need one. Separation of Concerns and all that.
The first hit searching for "open source asset management system" is https://snipeitapp.com - but there are many. Shouldn't be too hard for an operator to put TC names and IDs in one for cross-reference. Likewise for things like Ansible variables. Seems like the TO database should be the TO/TC database, and data for other systems should be maintained by them. Rather than shoving everything from every system into the CDN database. But that's my opinion. If the quorum disagrees, it's not a hill I'm going to die on. On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:30 PM Steve Malenfant <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 json would help us with Ansible as well to store various variables. > would be nice to have by cache group, servers, type... maybe not possible. > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:52 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
