District and Location Comments - #427
Conversation
raphaellaude
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
schema thoughts! PS. any reason you're merging into public ids rather than main?
| description: str | None = None | ||
| event_id: str | None = None | ||
| draft_status: DocumentDraftStatus | None = DocumentDraftStatus.scratch | ||
| comments: list[dict] | None = None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
H: let's please please please not expand the scope of this json blob
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good opportunity to refactor. Things like tags and comments definitely make sense as their own tables IMO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is not a great pattern and pretty inelegant, but it would strictly work as is.
I am with you longer term, but this feature is a moderately strong nice to have for this week. I don't think total capacity is there to do the refactor this week.
Do you have any concerns to this addition to the metadata?
2 things -- I wanted to avoid alembic shenanigans swapping between branches when possible, and the way metadata loads to the FE changes slightly with Public IDs to be on the map document instead of in user maps so I wanted to follow that pattern |
P.s. I figured this would merge into main after public IDs so we can just swap the merge target! |
Adds metadata fields for per-district comments and location based comments
Description
Reviewers
Checklist