Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event #472

ksradobe · 2018-08-16T10:20:39Z

What are the schemas that are affected by the issue

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/experienceevent
extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/orchestration/reportingevent

What are examples of products that are impacted by the issue

Voyager
Campaign

"reportingevent" schema is having all the attributes which constitute a valid reporting event. Here certain attributes can be pulled out from reporting event and make them available to other experience event. (Ex: Here, "Orchestration Details" in Campaign experience event). This will increase the consumability of common orchestration properties.

Another change is to add "Delivery name" and "Campaign Name" which is kind of friendly identifier for the user to remember instead of simple integer id. Similarly "Delivery Label" is a descriptive name given to the marketing activity for making it easily searchable.

Few more changes:
changing action's type attribute to "actionType".(It is a breaking change)
ContainerID is an additional attribute that was added to campaign experience event.

ksradobe · 2018-08-16T12:35:42Z

@fmeschbe
PR640 has been reverted in PR470. So I just merged those 4-5 commits into one and cherry picked that one to create this PR. I also modified XDM schema as per your argument in PR640 (ie to eliminate journeyContext from orchestration/experienceEvent.xml). Can you review it and confirm your approval?

fmeschbe · 2018-08-16T15:58:09Z

Thanks @ksradobe.

According to @kstreeter he backed those changes out in PR #470 to be able to tag the v0.9.4 drop and open the discussion about the PR.

So this will probably be the basis for the discussion of how we want to include the features from PR #464 in the XDM proper.

ksradobe · 2018-08-20T17:31:10Z

@lrosenthol can you review this PR?

lrosenthol · 2018-08-20T19:33:21Z

@ksradobe it's not clear what I am supposed to review, since it seems that @kstreeter is making some changes based on the comment from @fmeschbe above...

ksradobe · 2018-08-21T13:56:15Z

@lrosenthol
Changes which were merged into #464 has been been reverted by @kstreeter in #470. So I created this new PR to get back code of #464 into master again. It also had some more changes which are suggested by @fmeschbe

lrosenthol · 2018-08-24T15:33:19Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/experienceevent.example.email-send.json

  },
  "https://ns.adobe.com/experience/campaign/marketingCampaign": {
-    "xdm:id": 100
+    "xdm:id": 100,


ID isn't a number - it's a string.

Here,"id" attribute is an integer as per the XDM schema.

It is custom attribute xdm:id which is of type integer but not "@id" whose type is string

lrosenthol · 2018-08-24T15:34:06Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/orchestration/experienceevent.schema.json

+        "@id": {
+          "title": "Journey unique identifier",
+          "type": "string",
+          "format": "uri",


should this now be uri-reference?

I will change format to uri-reference but will it be an acceptable format for @id attribute? For @id attribute I always observed type as "string" and format as "uri". Is there no hard requirement for @id in terms of type and format?

@lrosenthol I changed @id's format from uri to uri-reference [observed similar usages in the master branch]

lrosenthol · 2018-08-24T15:34:17Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/orchestration/experienceevent.schema.json

+        "@id": {
+          "title": "Journey version identifier",
+          "type": "string",
+          "format": "uri",


should this now be uri-reference?

https://github.com/adobe/xdm/pull/472/files/9890ec32463a4fe4dd67964f6896a14c1d903ba3#r213259728

lrosenthol · 2018-08-24T15:34:34Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/orchestration/experienceevent.schema.json

+        "xdm:actionID": {
+          "title": "Action identifier",
+          "type": "string",
+          "format": "uri",


should this now be uri-reference?

https://github.com/adobe/xdm/pull/472/files/9890ec32463a4fe4dd67964f6896a14c1d903ba3#r213259728

fmeschbe · 2018-08-28T11:55:30Z

We should be discussing the type of the xdm:id properties.

This PR currently defines them to be of type integer. This works very well with the current implementation of ACS which is very SQL centric. As such, this choice of type IMHO exposes this implementation detail into the exchange and data format.

As we move forward and ACS is being rewritten and redesigned around new and more modern design and architecture principles, I am pretty sure, those identifiers won't remain numbers but will become strings if not even URIs.

As such, I propose the xdm:id properties to be defined of type string.

This has the added benefit that this would align with the definition of properties named xdm:id elsewhere, for example the identity schema.

fmeschbe · 2018-08-28T12:09:50Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/orchestration/experienceevent.schema.json

+          "title": "Action Type",
+          "type": "string",
+          "description": "The type of action to be performed.",
+          "meta:enum": {


I am a bit at unease with the labels of this enum:

They seem to be inconsistently named, for example participe-substantive as in scheduled_notification or parametrized_action vs. imperative-substantive as in send_journey_notification or just typed name as in acs_writer

The acs_* labels seem very much tied into the ACS product

I think the labels should be consistently structured and not be tied to a current product name (which may change outside of our control and which limits the general applicability of this data structure.

1)This actionType is already introduced XDM reporting event and now I am referring the same in campaign experience event. If inconsistent names needs to be handled here then it would be a breaking change. Should I create a separate issue and assign it to the concern person?
2) I agree with your comment in core XDM schema perspective. But generally xdm extension schemas are the only way to introduce product specific attributes. In that case, it should not be a problem use such names.

@ksradobe wrote:

This actionType is already introduced XDM reporting event and now I am referring the same in campaign experience event. If inconsistent names needs to be handled here then it would be a breaking change.

This is a good call-out. Yet what is evolutionary state of this ? is it draft or stabilizing or finalized ?

@fmeschbe It is in stabilizing state.

Yes, I like that much better.

How about

renaming campaign_rest_call to campaign_request and

renaming campaign_messageService_call to messageService_request ?

Thereby aligning with the new http_request.

@fmeschbe pushed my changes.

fmeschbe · 2018-08-28T12:18:57Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/experienceevent.schema.json

+            "xdm:deliveryName": {
+              "title": "Delivery Internal name",
+              "type": "string",
+              "description" : "Friendly identifier of the campaign activity which is originating this message."


I think the topic is that both the xdm:deliveryLabel and xdm:deliveryName are intended to be human readable. I think they should be consistently described as such.

fmeschbe · 2018-08-28T12:20:11Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/experienceevent.schema.json

+              "type": "string",
+              "description" : "Human friendly name of the campaign activity which is originating this message."
+            },
+            "xdm:deliveryName": {


I still think the term delivery is not needed here and in the xdm:deliveryLabel since they are part of the delivery schema/object.

Otherwise you could also make the case to call the ID field xdm:deliveryId.

change from "name", "label" to deliveryName and "deliveryLabel" is requested in one of the review comments.
#464 (comment)

fmeschbe · 2018-08-28T12:20:38Z

extensions/adobe/experience/campaign/experienceevent.schema.json

@@ -202,6 +212,11 @@
              "title": "Campaign ID",
              "type": "integer",
              "description": "Identifier of the marketing campaign to which activity originating this message belongs to."
+            },
+            "xdm:campaignName": {


Same discussion here for xdm:campaignName as part of the campaign schema/object

#472 (comment)

ksradobe · 2018-08-28T14:13:02Z

@fmeschbe This PR itself is not introducing delivery and campaign "xdm:id" attribute. They we already merged quite some time back. IMHO we should tackle this change as part of new PR under new issue. If you required, I will create issue and assign it to the concern person

ksradobe · 2018-08-30T12:55:29Z

@fmeschbe, @lrosenthol created a separate PR to track this independent improvement #499.
Can you approve this PR?

… breaking change

kstreeter · 2018-08-30T15:02:56Z

This is now in. Please note that on master I added back the old xdm:type field and marked it as deprecated. That allows this PR to go in without a breaking change that will impact current projects.

Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event

9890ec3

fmeschbe requested a review from kstreeter August 16, 2018 15:58

kstreeter added this to the 0.9.5 milestone Aug 23, 2018

lrosenthol reviewed Aug 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

fmeschbe reviewed Aug 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

ksradobe added 2 commits August 28, 2018 19:08

Merge branch 'master' into orchestration

b6016a5

minor comments ingested

cbf3139

ksradobe added 2 commits August 30, 2018 18:18

Modified action type enum values

c108ed3

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/adobe/xdm into orchestration

f1168ff

ksradobe force-pushed the orchestration branch from 15b9a5b to f1168ff Compare August 30, 2018 12:52

changed uri format to uri-reference

5d6b760

kstreeter merged commit 6aae909 into adobe:master Aug 30, 2018

kstreeter added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2018

keeping original 'xdm:type' field as deprecated to avoid #472 being a…

ab921ff

… breaking change

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event #472

Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event #472

ksradobe commented Aug 16, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fmeschbe commented Aug 16, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 20, 2018

lrosenthol commented Aug 20, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 21, 2018

lrosenthol Aug 24, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

lrosenthol Aug 24, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 30, 2018

lrosenthol Aug 24, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

lrosenthol Aug 24, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

fmeschbe commented Aug 28, 2018

fmeschbe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

fmeschbe Aug 29, 2018

ksradobe Aug 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fmeschbe Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ksradobe Aug 30, 2018

fmeschbe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

fmeschbe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

fmeschbe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

kstreeter commented Aug 30, 2018

Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event #472

Add Journey context and delivery attributes in experience event #472

Conversation

ksradobe commented Aug 16, 2018

What are the schemas that are affected by the issue

What are examples of products that are impacted by the issue

ksradobe commented Aug 16, 2018 • edited Loading

fmeschbe commented Aug 16, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 20, 2018

lrosenthol commented Aug 20, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 21, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fmeschbe commented Aug 28, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ksradobe Aug 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fmeschbe Aug 30, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ksradobe commented Aug 28, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 30, 2018 • edited Loading

kstreeter commented Aug 30, 2018

ksradobe commented Aug 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ksradobe Aug 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fmeschbe Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ksradobe commented Aug 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading