Note the transaction id is already user visible. It’s sent in the response headers. As long as we are clear and document that there’s no api for querying by this id at this time, the risk of confusion is low imo.
-r > On Aug 21, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Martin Henke <martin.he...@web.de> wrote: > > Chetan, > > from an operational point of view I have some fear that we will confuse the > user by making the transaction id visible as a second id besides the > activation id. > Some will certainly use it to fetch activation records and fail, which will > lead to questions. > Any thoughts from your side ? > > Regards, > Martin > > >> On 20. Aug 2019, at 12:32, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I created a separate thread to discuss how to store such metadata related >> to activation. >> >> Current open PR #4586 only enables exposing the transactionId to env. It >> does not make any attempt to store the transactionId currently. Once we >> decide how such data should be stored then I can open PR for the same >> >> Chetan Mehrotra >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:47 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yes indeed. Your pr already open I think is fine as is. >>> >>> -r >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> That’s true. Time for api/v2... >>>> >>>> This is now becoming a rabbit hole! What option should we use without >>> going >>>> for v2? >>>> >>>> 1. Introduce a new "meta" sub document >>>> 2. OR Change annotations to flat map while storing but transform that to >>>> array based structure while returning to client >>>> >>>> Chetan Mehrotra >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:15 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> However changing them now would cause compatibility >>>>>> issue with various tooling out there which may be interpreting the >>>>>> annotation per current design >>>>> >>>>> That’s true. Time for api/v2... 😅 >>> >
