Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Determine multi-address- and primary account-related requirements and update PG schema #304

Closed
3 tasks done
ccali11 opened this issue Mar 31, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed
3 tasks done
Assignees

Comments

@ccali11
Copy link
Contributor

ccali11 commented Mar 31, 2023

Issue
We need to first settle on the user stories / user experiences we intend to deliver with respect to account management. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list of things to consider, but a few that we've run up against that require some thought, requirements setting, and then implementation include:

  • setting and updating a user's "primary address"; currently the wallet address of user's first connected wallet becomes a new user on the users table with address being the pk. We should figure out what the best practice should be if we were to update that "primary address" to something else.
  • determining if multiple users can share addresses; currently address is the pk on accounts table, so even if two accounts have different owner_addresses (fk to users table), we'd cause a pk collision on the accounts table with our current schema if we were to enable this
  • implement a base type naming convention where base types are derived from PG table schema, which then allows us to extend names of the base types with descriptive names to be used in application code

Solution
Determine user story --> user experience --> requirements and write them here. Then implement.

Further Info
I'll be handling this task, but I think everyone will be affected by its outcome so tagging you all (@shanejearley @hawyar @DemogorGod) for awareness. I welcome all thoughts, comments, and feedback, but don't feel obligated. Will run my thought process by at least one of you before implementing.

@ccali11
Copy link
Contributor Author

ccali11 commented Apr 19, 2023

Closing issue because it will be resolved in a forthcoming PR.

@ccali11 ccali11 closed this as completed Apr 19, 2023
@ccali11
Copy link
Contributor Author

ccali11 commented Apr 19, 2023

Reopening until we close with PR #320

@ccali11 ccali11 reopened this Apr 19, 2023
@ccali11 ccali11 closed this as completed Apr 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant