implement handling of meta-data section in RMB

Description

See FOLIO-592 for the definition of the meta-data section. RMB should provide it an opt-in or opt-out automatic handling of the meta-data section. please provide more details of the expected approach here.

Environment

None

Potential Workaround

None

Attachments

2

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

shale99 August 1, 2017 at 7:23 PM
Edited

each module will need to do the following:

1. upgrade to rmb version 13.1.0 (when released)
2. reference the meta data schema in each of the schemas that need the meta data support
3. add the attached to the create / update tenant template sql

Jakub Skoczen July 31, 2017 at 9:49 AM

From :

still need answers to the two questions above, in the meantime will update on the impl:

update script for storage modules with the following:

the above will be used to store the creation data and creator in two separate columns per record - this ensures that even after multiple updates - we retain the original values even if they were removed / changed in the metaData schema

on insert only trigger - the above populates the columns created with the creation date and creator values from the json - this info is automatically pushed into the json by rmb - this info is stored in the two appropriate columns

on updates only - the above can be simplified - but in general - the creation and creator are pushed into the metaData section in the json , the update and updated by are pushed into the metadata section as well. currently , re-creating the entire metaData section within the record hence also reading the rmb populated update date and updater from the json

as for dates - as i've mentioned earlier - we need to decide on a single format so that all dates are stored in that format - it gets very complex to receive multiple formats and maintain those formats per record so that the record is returned with the same format it was saved with. this can be done if we use a string and not a date representation in the db - but that doesnt seem to make any sense. if we are ok that iso8601 can be passed in, but the date format returned will be the single representation - then ignore this date comment

Done

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Labels

Priority

Fix versions

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs
Created July 31, 2017 at 9:47 AM
Updated August 4, 2017 at 5:14 AM
Resolved August 4, 2017 at 5:14 AM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs