Re: [mb-users] Sorting sub-works and more generally ARs

On 25 October 2013 13:43, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2013/10/25 Tom Crocker <[email protected]>
>
>> Oh, I also meant to say, given the structure that was put in place to
>> deal with instrument free-text credits I don't think this would be a case
>> of just adding an integer to the link table, because they'll want to have a
>> postgresql way of restricting when it can be used.
>>
>
> Could you explain more?
>

For http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5848 to allow free-text next
to instruments (e.g. Synthesiser: Korg M1), the implementation
https://bitbucket.org/metabrainz/musicbrainz-server/pull-request/39/mbs-5848-schema-changes-for-creditable/diffintroduces
two new tables:
link_attribute_credit and link_creditable_attribute_type -- the first to
hold the text itself and the second to restrict the attributes that can
have credits added to them (i.e. instruments).
I guess something very similar would be required, plus all the code to
ensure you didn't get duplicate values.

They also haven't updated the UI to enable use of this yet.

re: sort within AR type / per attribute.
No, for the kind of things I think should be sorted I can't see when taking
(other) attributes into account would be useful. Of the AR types I
suggested only performance-of has extra attributes (right?). I could
imagine attributes being added to the samples AR, but would still think (if
that should be sortable) any sorting should be AR-wide, not split up by
attributes.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users