[ic] Database Definition Discrepancies

[Kevin Walsh]

"Paul Jordan" <jordan at gishnetwork.com> wrote:
> In doing some prep work for a new project today I wanted to match up the
> changes between my databases (various original IC installs from 4.8 and up
> with mods) with the current nightly build. I'd like to first say that the
> tables seem to be going in a good direction.
> 
> However in doing this syncing I discovered some discrepancies, some which
> could bite under certain circumstances. The following can cause unexpected
> truncating (varchar lengths shown):
> 
> username: 
> 	userdb: 64
> 	transactions: 32
> 	orderline: 32
> 
> address3: 
> 	userdb: present
> 	transactions: not present
> 
> b_state:
> 	userdb: 20
> 	transactions: 10
> 		
> company: (b_ also)
> 	userdb: 64
> 	transactions: 30
> 
> phone_night,phone_day
> 	userdb: 30
> 	transactions: 20
> 
Those should all match up, and it is incorrect of them to not to so.
I have a new demo here that I work with to create new websites.
All of the column types match correctly in there. :-)

>
> Also, I noticed that some fields (and tables) are now gone. I am keeping
> track of these as I go, but since I was sending the above, I thought I'd
> mention a couple I was unsure of.
> 
> In Userdb, there used to be columns 'email_copy' and 'fax_order' which are
> not present in the current standard. However when I grep Vend I see for
> example:
> 
> /ic/lib/Vend/UserDB.pm:@P_FIELDS = qw ( p_nickname email fax email_copy
> phone_night mail_list fax_order );
> 
> /ic/lib/UI/pages/admin/order_status_alt.html: my $wants_copy =
> $udb->field($user, 'email_copy');
> 
> Along with slew of references to the [value] of email_copy.
> 
I have email_copy in my demo, but I didn't bother with fax_order.
It's not a problem, as you can set the column list with the UserDB
directive.

The only reason I kept email_copy is because the admin system wants
it.  The user doesn't get a choice here - I just save it with a true
value and they get order notifications whether they want them or not.

>
> Is this going to be a problem? Is there any place to see the changes made to
> the tables over the years? I subscribe to the cvs-announce and I do glance
> at all of them, but to tell you the truth I don't remember seeing table
> related changes. WhatsNew does not mention these things directly either. Any
> suggestions?
>
The only place where this sort of information is kept is in the CVS
commit notification mail list, and in CVS itself, of course.

> 
> I'd like to keep the tables standard friendly so there are no upgrade
> problems.
> 
Heh - my new demo isn't exactly Standard-demo-upgrade-friendly, so I
wouldn't worry about it.  I have tried to keep it admin-friendly in
the first version.  The second version won't be admin friendly at all,
and will require a whole new admin system.  I'll get to work on that
at some point.

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/   K e v i n   W a l s h
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/    kevin at cursor.biz
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/