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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
