This commit is contained in:
@@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ Finish off the v8 test export then get the below shit done so can move to stage
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
todo: PLANNING WORKORDER considerations:
|
||||
QUESTIONS:
|
||||
Why do I need to make a wo first before I can update it? (i.e. why did I make a CREATE route?)
|
||||
|
||||
DEPENDENCIES
|
||||
Workorder is not dependent on it's children for anything
|
||||
@@ -128,10 +130,21 @@ todo: PLANNING WORKORDER considerations:
|
||||
labor 2 (OP flag = "update" with all data)
|
||||
labor 3 (OP flag="delete" with concurrency token and nothing else)
|
||||
labor 4 (OP flag="Add", with all PUT data)
|
||||
|
||||
SERVER
|
||||
Server accepts graph at single WO POST route (since it's not a put)
|
||||
UI
|
||||
ui manufactures the return object with the OP fields by doing dirty tracking on changes
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
UI
|
||||
Ideally I would like to only send the bits that are altered to save bandwidth
|
||||
Only send the bits that are altered to save bandwidth
|
||||
All updates are technically a PATCH operation
|
||||
Because it starts with a wo object provided by the server?
|
||||
or is this even necessary now?
|
||||
think Patch
|
||||
CONCURRENCY:
|
||||
if any part of the patch fails the whole patch fails
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
A biz object for each one?
|
||||
probably need the parent for biz rules and shit so likely best to keep in one file
|
||||
@@ -254,6 +267,11 @@ todo: PLANNING session tracking to prevent logging in from multiple devices with
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
todo: Server serialized fields, it should *not* be getting the value from the table but rather have it's own table with last number assigned instead
|
||||
My plan has flaws, getting the number from teh last number used in the actual table is a bit fucked because it means you could end up with mutiple issues
|
||||
Instead have central location for storing serial numbers (perhaps one per table type for concurrency efficieny? Though it's a pretty fast operation.)
|
||||
Do not put in shared object though, i.e. global settings or something because it's going to be it's own thing and require efficient access.
|
||||
Maybe this is a case for a stored procedure?
|
||||
|
||||
History - MORE button not showing? Was looking at administrator history for AA import scott
|
||||
- also, is it showing other types of objects besides Users and Customers? (not seeing wo)
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user