Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion data migration for process flow optional states
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Amy Bensinger (Contractor)  
View profile  
 More options Jan 16 2008, 10:45 pm
From: "Amy Bensinger (Contractor)" <abensin...@grameenfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:45:01 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 16 2008 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Mifos-functional] data migration for process flow optional states
Hi, Adam.

I would say option 1 is the least desirable from an operational
perspective, as MFI's are more likely to want the Approval to be
required than not, hence the client should immediately enter the pending
approval state.  

-----Original Message-----
From: mifos-functional-boun...@lists.sourceforge.net

[mailto:mifos-functional-boun...@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of
Adam Monsen
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:56 AM
To: Mifos functional discussions
Subject: [Mifos-functional] data migration for process flow optional
states

I'm trying to wrap up the implementation for story 23 (
http://snipurl.com/1xku4 ) and I just wanted to confirm an issue with
the PMs (Emily, et al).

My question is about all of the optional states, but I'm hoping the
solution for one can be applied to all five. "the flag" below refers
to "whether or not the 'pending approval' state is enabled for
clients". Meaning, whether or not clients enter a state of "pending
approval" upon creation (or are, I assume, automatically approved).
Also note that I simply refer to "the config file". In reality there
is a "default" or "master" config file, and customizations to settings
are placed in a different file; these customizations override default
values.

Currently, in the database, the flag is on. This database value will
be used to effectively save the state of the current setting for the
flag. This is an unfortunate compromise between engineering elegance
and the need to complete this story in that a table of configuration
data is now being used to save state. At any rate, the config file
will be used to override what is in the database.

>From the story (see URL above): once it is turned on, no mechanism is
provided for turning it off. Given this, the config file can only be
used to turn on the flag.

The logic to figure out if the flag is on at runtime will be similar
to that used to figure out whether loans can be made for groups.

1. is the flag on in the database and is the flag on in the config
file? if so, it is "on" to the application. Client Pending Approval
state is enabled.
2. else, is the flag off in the database and on in the config file? If
so, it it is "on" to the application. Also, the database value will be
updated to be "on". The value cannot be turned off after this.
3. else, is the flag on in the database and off in the config? If so,
throw an exception at startup.

The only problem with this logic is that the second condition can
never be met since the flag in the database is currently on.

Potential solutions:
1. turn the flag off in the database, and off in the config file. For
existing installations, the config file must be changed by hand to
override the flag value to "on" if support for the pending state is
desired. May hide existing records in the "pending" state or cause
other unknown/unrelated problems.
2. leave the flag on in the database and on in the config file. No way
to turn off the flag.
3. leave the flag on in the database and off in the config file.
Non-starter. Causes an exception immediately upon startup since flag
cannot be overridden to "off".

I see #1 as the best option for now since the config file will
probably need editing, and I don't see the existing data migration
issues as severe.

Agree/disagree/other?

--
Adam Monsen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Mifos-functional mailing list
Mifos-functio...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mifos-functional

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Mifos-functional mailing list
Mifos-functio...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mifos-functional


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google