In preparation for the production deployment, and following the checklist, we would like to ask for a database review of the schema of the CampaignEvents extension.
Links to the schema on master:
Previous review of indexes: T308738: Ensure that all tables have all the necessary indexes
Target deployment date: TBD
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Daimona | T318595 Create database schema for the CampaignEvents extension on testwiki, test2wiki, and officewiki | |||
| Resolved | Ladsgroup | T318593 Review database schema of the CampaignEvents extension | |||
| Resolved | Daimona | T318120 Update database schema to support private registration | |||
| Resolved | Daimona | T318379 Change storage of organizer roles |
Another update: this is not actually blocked on T318381, so the schema is effectively ready for review. Just a quick note that if we do end up using the local databases in the future, the schema may change to account for that.
How is it different from the schema I reviewed a couple weeks ago? so I can review less stuff :D
That's a good question :D Here is the overall diff between the commit you reviewed and master. You obviously only need to look at differences in tables.json, and perhaps the autogenerated MySQL schema, but I can't find a way to diff a specific file, so the link above diffs all files.
Notable changes are:
One question and it's good to go: event_tracking_tool_event_id is blob. Is that intentional? It feels it should be int or something like that.
Good question! Yes, it actually is intentional. Different tracking tools can identify events in different ways; some may use integer IDs, but others may not. For instance, the P&E Dashboard identifies courses with unique string IDs (corresponding to the course name, I think).