Clone Tools
  • last updated a few seconds ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
AO-379 Add new 'lots manage' right for lot endpoints.

AO-379 Add new 'lots manage' right for lot endpoints.

    • -0
    • +4
    ./20190726083236971__added_lots_manage_right.sql
  1. … 4 more files in changeset.
AO-379 Change changelog ticket link to core one and remove comments.

    • -7
    • +0
    ./20190726083236971__added_lots_manage_right.sql
  1. … 1 more file in changeset.
AO-379 Add migration for lots manage right creating.

    • -0
    • +11
    ./20190726083236971__added_lots_manage_right.sql
OLMIS-6402: Renamed versionId to versionNumber in referencedata
OLMIS-6402: Renamed versionId to versionNumber in referencedata
OLMIS-6402: Renamed migration

    • -27
    • +0
    ./20190722091929982__rename_versionId_to_versionName.sql
    • -0
    • +27
    ./20190722091929982__rename_versionId_to_versionNumber.sql
OLMIS-6402: Renamed versionId field to versionNumber

    • -0
    • +27
    ./20190722091929982__rename_versionId_to_versionName.sql
  1. … 43 more files in changeset.
removed

removed

Yes. The table can contain a lot of data so adding columns and set default values could drop performance

Yes. The table can contain a lot of data so adding columns and set default values could drop performance

Is it because dropping and recreating is faster?

Is it because dropping and recreating is faster?

I don't think we should be settings this in the constructor. I might want to use this constructor in retrieval endpoints, for example Isn't doing this in PrePersist/Update annotated method enough?

I don't think we should be settings this in the constructor. I might want to use this constructor in retrieval endpoints, for example

Isn't doing this in PrePersist/Update annotated method enough?

OLMIS-6358: Added versioning to Facility Type Approved Product resource
OLMIS-6358: Added versioning to Facility Type Approved Product resource
In the following review, I only added a new field to the FTAP resource. I will adjust endpoints in next commits and reviews. Stay tuned.

In the following review, I only added a new field to the FTAP resource. I will adjust endpoints in next commits and reviews. Stay tuned.

OLMIS-6358: Added versioning to Facility Type Approved Product resource

    • -0
    • +43
    ./20190624113100189__added_versions_to_facility_type_approved_products.sql
  1. … 21 more files in changeset.
I didn't find any place where we are comparing dates from the database to the current timestamp, but I replaced hardcoded zone with SQL function NOW().

I didn't find any place where we are comparing dates from the database to the current timestamp, but I replaced hardcoded zone with SQL function NOW().

could check how do we handle such cases in other parts of the system?

could check how do we handle such cases in other parts of the system?

Should we add changelog for this?

Should we add changelog for this?

Because it's better in my opinion and it was the original idea from what I remember.

Because it's better in my opinion and it was the original idea from what I remember.

I thought that our database stores ZonedDateTimes in UTC.

I thought that our database stores ZonedDateTimes in UTC.

but still why we are renaming the field?

but still why we are renaming the field?

Yes, I've adjusted UI.

Yes, I've adjusted UI.

why we use hardcoded zone here?

why we use hardcoded zone here?

why we are not using setter annotation for the field? I don't see anything special here

why we are not using setter annotation for the field? I don't see anything special here

why the field has been renamed? Does UI handle new field name?

why the field has been renamed? Does UI handle new field name?