[PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Deepak, Suraj,

Yes, that's why I changed the title for this "sub-thread".

Now the question is to agree about having those fields always visible while searching or it they should show only based on a properties.

Are those of interest also in a production environment?

Maybe they are not present simply because their presence depends on no-auto-stamp="false". I see no other reasons, notably not a performance reason.

In order to avoid confusion we should create a new thread to discuss those 2 points:

 1. Adding them to search fields
 2. Having them always visible, not only in dev environment

And if OK create a Jira :)

Jacques

Le 27/04/2019 à 07:40, Suraj Khurana a écrit :

> +1, Deepak Dixit.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Suraj Khurana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:05 AM Deepak Dixit <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I think here we are mixing two different thread.
>>
>>>>> auto-stamp fields in "entity-engine in webtools"
>> As I understand in this thread we are talking about only view part of find
>> generic entity page.
>> Here we are not talking about adding or removing fields in the entity. If
>> an entity has stamp filed it should display on webtools find generic page,
>> as it helps while debugging issues.
>>
>> Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Deepak Dixit
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pritam, All,
>>>
>>> To clarify, in case there is a confusion here. If I'm not wrong Suraj
>>> suggested to add the auto-stamp fields in "entity-engine in webtools".
>>>
>>> Like for instance at
>>>
>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/webtools/control/FindGeneric?entityName=OrderHeader
>>> He did not speak about the 'createdByUserLogin' and
>>> 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields, please Suraj confirm.
>>>
>>> Then I agreed but suggested that it was not a default but implemented
>> with
>>> a properties to be used during development mostly
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 26/04/2019 à 09:00, Pritam Kute a écrit :
>>>> IMO, adding 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields
>> to
>>>> every entity is not that useful. Like for example, if we consider the
>>>> "Visit" entity, I am not able to find any advantage of having these
>>> fields
>>>> in this entity. But, it should be added to some crucial entities like
>>>> OrderHeader, OrderItem, ProductPrice(which is already there) to track
>> the
>>>> things like who dod the last price updates or order updates.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Pritam Kute
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 25/04/2019 à 14:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>>>>>> IMO, this is configurable as Jacques pointed, so need to take any
>>> action.
>>>>>> In fact, I would suggest showing these fields while searching for any
>>>>> data
>>>>>> from entity-engine in webtools, because they are really helpful while
>>>>>> working in a dev environment for debugging.
>>>>> This could be configurable indeed (less need in production for
>> instance
>>> so
>>>>> default would be false)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my two cents !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Suraj Khurana
>>>>>> TECHNICAL CONSULTANT
>>>>>> mobile: [phone]
>>>>>> email: [hidden email]
>>>>>> www.hotwax.co
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit out of subject, just to complete the discussion because nobody
>>>>> spoke
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The entities are defined with no-auto-stamp="false" by default so
>> it's
>>>>>>> possible to change this default.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields
>>> are
>>>>>>> not concerned, it was just to complete
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 24/04/2019 à 13:36, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>> Thank you for details, all makes sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>>>>>>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>>>>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention
>> Center,
>>>>>>> Indore,
>>>>>>>> M.P 452010
>>>>>>>> Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki*
>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rishi-solanki-62271b7/>
>>>>>>>> Direct: [phone]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:37 PM Michael Brohl <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick
>>> food
>>>>>>>>> for thought:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed
>>>>>>>>> tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a
>>>>>>>>> sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was
>>>>> done,
>>>>>>>>> maybe others can add insights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But what about the second suggestion about having the
>>>>>>>>> 'createdByUserLogin'
>>>>>>>>>> and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal
>> fields
>>>>> set?
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice
>> President*
>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>>>>>>>>>> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without
>>>>>>>>> privileges)
>>>>>>>>>> since 2008*
>>>>>>>>>> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields
>> mark
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real"
>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>> time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently our functions inject following internal fields into
>> the
>>>>>>> model
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> each entity:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          - createdStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>          - createdTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>          - lastUpdatedStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>          - lastUpdatedTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the fields above are of the field type definition
>>>>> 'date-time',
>>>>>>>>>>>> giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP.
>> This
>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and
>>>>>>>>>>> lastUpdatedTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> are always injected into the model of each entity, and always
>>>>> filled?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice
>>> President*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without
>>>>>>>>>>> privileges)
>>>>>>>>>>>> since 2008*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

This is handled by OFBIZ-10959, so we can close this convo and use rather "[PROPOSAL] Enable entity timestamp fields" at
https://markmail.org/message/x7paa3ulljns6awh if ever needed (OK there and in Jira for me)

Jacques

Le 27/04/2019 à 10:29, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Thanks Deepak, Suraj,
>
> Yes, that's why I changed the title for this "sub-thread".
>
> Now the question is to agree about having those fields always visible while searching or it they should show only based on a properties.
>
> Are those of interest also in a production environment?
>
> Maybe they are not present simply because their presence depends on no-auto-stamp="false". I see no other reasons, notably not a performance reason.
>
> In order to avoid confusion we should create a new thread to discuss those 2 points:
>
> 1. Adding them to search fields
> 2. Having them always visible, not only in dev environment
>
> And if OK create a Jira :)
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 27/04/2019 à 07:40, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>> +1, Deepak Dixit.
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Suraj Khurana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:05 AM Deepak Dixit <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think here we are mixing two different thread.
>>>
>>>>>> auto-stamp fields in "entity-engine in webtools"
>>> As I understand in this thread we are talking about only view part of find
>>> generic entity page.
>>> Here we are not talking about adding or removing fields in the entity. If
>>> an entity has stamp filed it should display on webtools find generic page,
>>> as it helps while debugging issues.
>>>
>>> Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Deepak Dixit
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Pritam, All,
>>>>
>>>> To clarify, in case there is a confusion here. If I'm not wrong Suraj
>>>> suggested to add the auto-stamp fields in "entity-engine in webtools".
>>>>
>>>> Like for instance at
>>>>
>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/webtools/control/FindGeneric?entityName=OrderHeader
>>>> He did not speak about the 'createdByUserLogin' and
>>>> 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields, please Suraj confirm.
>>>>
>>>> Then I agreed but suggested that it was not a default but implemented
>>> with
>>>> a properties to be used during development mostly
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Le 26/04/2019 à 09:00, Pritam Kute a écrit :
>>>>> IMO, adding 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields
>>> to
>>>>> every entity is not that useful. Like for example, if we consider the
>>>>> "Visit" entity, I am not able to find any advantage of having these
>>>> fields
>>>>> in this entity. But, it should be added to some crucial entities like
>>>>> OrderHeader, OrderItem, ProductPrice(which is already there) to track
>>> the
>>>>> things like who dod the last price updates or order updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pritam Kute
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 25/04/2019 à 14:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>>>>>>> IMO, this is configurable as Jacques pointed, so need to take any
>>>> action.
>>>>>>> In fact, I would suggest showing these fields while searching for any
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>> from entity-engine in webtools, because they are really helpful while
>>>>>>> working in a dev environment for debugging.
>>>>>> This could be configurable indeed (less need in production for
>>> instance
>>>> so
>>>>>> default would be false)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my two cents !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>> Suraj Khurana
>>>>>>> TECHNICAL CONSULTANT
>>>>>>> mobile: [phone]
>>>>>>> email: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> www.hotwax.co
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit out of subject, just to complete the discussion because nobody
>>>>>> spoke
>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The entities are defined with no-auto-stamp="false" by default so
>>> it's
>>>>>>>> possible to change this default.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not concerned, it was just to complete
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 24/04/2019 à 13:36, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for details, all makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>>>>>>>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>>>>>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention
>>> Center,
>>>>>>>> Indore,
>>>>>>>>> M.P 452010
>>>>>>>>> Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki*
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rishi-solanki-62271b7/>
>>>>>>>>> Direct: [phone]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:37 PM Michael Brohl <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick
>>>> food
>>>>>>>>>> for thought:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed
>>>>>>>>>> tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a
>>>>>>>>>> sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was
>>>>>> done,
>>>>>>>>>> maybe others can add insights.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But what about the second suggestion about having the
>>>>>>>>>> 'createdByUserLogin'
>>>>>>>>>>> and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal
>>> fields
>>>>>> set?
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice
>>> President*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without
>>>>>>>>>> privileges)
>>>>>>>>>>> since 2008*
>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields
>>> mark
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real"
>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>> time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently our functions inject following internal fields into
>>> the
>>>>>>>> model
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> each entity:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>          - createdStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>          - createdTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>          - lastUpdatedStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>          - lastUpdatedTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the fields above are of the field type definition
>>>>>> 'date-time',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP.
>>> This
>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and
>>>>>>>>>>>> lastUpdatedTxStamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are always injected into the model of each entity, and always
>>>>>> filled?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice
>>>> President*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without
>>>>>>>>>>>> privileges)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since 2008*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>