Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Agree that it sounds better to have a parent-child model. And reasoning too, we want to do open311+, definitely don't want to be restricted by that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
What we did have:
Until
0.0.15-alpha
services were modeled in a parent-child hierarchy, the idea being that:There were tests at the API endpoint and repository levels that showed serialization to/from open311 group to this parent-child data model was working (for some definition of working).
I came to this model from:
What we now have:
This was changed in
0.0.15-alpha
back to a model that directly follows the Open311 approach of a "flat" container group. I don't really know why - perhaps there was an edge case, or some behavior in the existing client that was not identical to the test cases we had.Whatever the case, I think this highlights that we need to discuss and design the Service entity a bit to ensure we model it in a way that supports Open311 but is not restricted by it.
** Some thoughts:**
@amirozer @idoivri be great to get your thoughts here, and/or discuss this further in person.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions