Create crm_v2 schema views
#556
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057 As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff we are going to be creating all our new tables in the default `public` schema. We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a [View](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html) of it in the `public` schema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities that are currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 . This change adds the migrations needed to create views for the tables we are currently using from `crm_v2` schema. > We'll follow this up with new models and test helpers in another change. The final step is then to refactor the existing code to use the new models and delete the old legacy ones.
Cruikshanks
added
the
housekeeping
diff --git a/db/migrations/public/20231128140249_create-billing-accounts-view.js b/db/migrations/public/20231128140249_create-billing-accounts-view.js
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..279c299
--- /dev/null
+++ b/db/migrations/public/20231128140249_create-billing-accounts-view.js
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+'use strict'
+
+const viewName = 'billing_accounts'
+
+exports.up = function (knex) {
+ return knex
+ .schema
+ .createView(viewName, (view) => {
+ // NOTE: We have commented out unused columns from the source table
+ view.as(knex('invoice_accounts').withSchema('crm_v2').select([
+ 'invoice_accounts.invoice_account_id AS id',
+ 'invoice_accounts.company_id',
+ 'invoice_accounts.invoice_account_number AS account_number',
+ // 'invoice_accounts.start_date', // is populated but is never displayed in the UI or used
+ // 'invoice_accounts.end_date', // is null for all records
+ // 'invoice_accounts.is_test', // we ignore this legacy test column in tables
+ 'invoice_accounts.last_transaction_file_reference AS last_transaction_file',
+ 'invoice_accounts.date_last_transaction_file_reference_updated AS last_transaction_file_created_at',
+ 'invoice_accounts.date_created AS created_at',
+ 'invoice_accounts.date_updated AS updated_at'
+ ]))
+ })
+}
+
+exports.down = function (knex) {
+ return knex
+ .schema
+ .dropViewIfExists(viewName)
+}
diff --git a/db/migrations/public/20231128143653_create-companies-view.js b/db/migrations/public/20231128143653_create-companies-view.js
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9897717
--- /dev/null
+++ b/db/migrations/public/20231128143653_create-companies-view.js
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+'use strict'
+
+const viewName = 'companies'
+
+exports.up = function (knex) {
+ return knex
+ .schema
+ .createView(viewName, (view) => {
+ // NOTE: We have commented out unused columns from the source table
+ view.as(knex('companies').withSchema('crm_v2').select([
+ 'companies.company_id AS id',
+ 'companies.name',
+ 'companies.type',
+ 'companies.company_number',
+ // 'companies.external_id', // is populated for companies migrated from NALD but not actually used
+ // 'companies.is_test', // we ignore this legacy test column in tables
+ 'companies.organisation_type',
+ // 'companies.last_hash', // is populated but is only used by the legacy import process
+ // 'companies.current_hash', // is populated but is only used by the legacy import process
+ 'companies.date_created AS created_at',
+ 'companies.date_updated AS updated_at'
+ ]))
+ })
+}
+
+exports.down = function (knex) {
+ return knex
+ .schema
+ .dropViewIfExists(viewName)
+}
db/migrations/public/20231128141428_create-billing-account-addresses-view.js
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057 As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff we are going to be creating all our new tables in the default `public` schema. We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a [View](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html) of it in the `public` schema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities that are currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 . This change adds the models and helpers for the views in the `crm_v2` schema that were created in PR #556 > The final step will then be to refactor the existing code to use the new models and delete the old legacy ones.
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2023
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057 As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff we are going to be creating all our new tables in the default `public` schema. We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a [View](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html) of it in the `public` schema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities that are currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 . This change adds the models and helpers for the views in the `crm_v2` schema that were created in PR #556 > The final step will then be to refactor the existing code to use the new models and delete the old legacy ones.
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2023
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057 As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff, we will be creating all our new tables in the default `public` schema. We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a [View](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html) of it in the `public` schema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 . We created the new views in [Create CRM_V2 schema views](#556). Then in [Create CRM_V2 schema models and helpers](#561) we added the new models and helpers that use them. This is the final step in the process, we are refactoring any use of the legacy models to use the new ones and deleting all the legacy-based code.
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2023
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057 As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff, we will be creating all our new tables in the default `public` schema. We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a [View](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html) of it in the `public` schema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 . We created the new views in [Create CRM_V2 schema views](#556). Then in [Create CRM_V2 schema models and helpers](#561) we added the new models and helpers that use them. This is the final step in the process, we are refactoring any use of the legacy models to use the new ones and deleting all the legacy-based code.
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4365 > For context this came out of us working on re-implementing the SROC annual bill run using what we've learnt and components from our supplementary billing engine. As part of looking at re-implementing the SROC annual billing engine in this project our spike (WATER-4348 ) confirmed we could simplify the implementation and improve performance if we extracted the billing account details at the same time as the charge versions to be billed. When we implemented the SROC supplementary billing engine we were directly working with the legacy schemas and tables. This meant we couldn't create relationships in models that sat in different schemas. But thanks to [Create water schema views](#551) and [Create crm_v2 schema views](#556) they are hidden away from us. We can now work as if the legacy schemas are a single schema. So, this change updates the `ChargeVersionModel` and `BillingAccountModel` to add a relationship between them which we can then exploit with our [Objection.js queries](https://vincit.github.io/objection.js/).
Cruikshanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4365 > For context this came out of us working on re-implementing the SROC annual bill run using what we've learnt and components from our supplementary billing engine. As part of looking at re-implementing the SROC annual billing engine in this project our spike (WATER-4348 ) confirmed we could simplify the implementation and improve performance if we extracted the billing account details at the same time as the charge versions to be billed. When we implemented the SROC supplementary billing engine we were directly working with the legacy schemas and tables. This meant we couldn't create relationships in models that sat in different schemas. But thanks to [Create water schema views](#551) and [Create crm_v2 schema views](#556) they are hidden away from us. We can now work as if the legacy schemas are a single schema. So, this change updates the `ChargeVersionModel` and `BillingAccountModel` to add a relationship between them which we can then exploit with our [Objection.js queries](https://vincit.github.io/objection.js/).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4057
As part of the work we have been doing on two-part tariff we are going to be creating all our new tables in the default
publicschema.We have also decided that when there is a legacy table that we are still going to need we will create a View of it in the
publicschema. This allows us to correct any issues with naming conventions, strip out unused fields, and join entities that are currently sat in different schemas. The first example of this approach was done in PR #531 .This change adds the migrations needed to create views for the tables we are currently using from
crm_v2schema.