Database Dictionary Audit for Create:Code Review
Recently the database team has started documenting all database tables in db/doc
. As an MVP, we've assigned
each table to a feature category. We attempted to automate this, and then made rough guesses on the ones that
couldn't be automatically identified either using this spreadsheet
or just by guessing based on their name and code references. In order to make sure these are accurate, I'm
asking every team to take a look at the tables associated with their feature categories assoicated with their
stages.
What we need from your team? Look through the list of tables and fix any mistaken labels and update the description field to help folks know what purpose the table serves.
Process (per table)
- Are the feature categories correct?
- Keep in mind that tables can have multiple categories. Look at the list and if there are any other categories it belongs to, add them.
- If a table has no category that seems to be a perfect match, assign it to the closest match. Tables must have at least one feature category.
- If the table is assigned to a feature category for a different group, open a merge request changing the category and assign it to the EM for the group responsible for that category.
- Update the description of the table to give anybody interacting with it context around the purpose and submit a merge request with the information.
- Double check the
milestone
andintroduced_by_url
to see if they are accurate
Tables
-
merge_request_context_commits -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_context_commits description has been updated -
merge_request_context_commits milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_metrics -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_metrics description has been updated -
merge_request_metrics milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_diff_commit_users -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_diff_commit_users description has been updated -
merge_request_diff_commit_users milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_cleanup_schedules -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_cleanup_schedules description has been updated -
merge_request_cleanup_schedules milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_requests -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_requests description has been updated -
merge_requests milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_assignees -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_assignees description has been updated -
merge_request_assignees milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_diff_details -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_diff_details description has been updated -
merge_request_diff_details milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_diffs -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_diffs description has been updated -
merge_request_diffs milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_reviewers -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_reviewers description has been updated -
merge_request_reviewers milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
note_diff_files -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
note_diff_files description has been updated -
note_diff_files milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
approval_merge_request_rules_approved_approvers -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
approval_merge_request_rules_approved_approvers description has been updated -
approval_merge_request_rules_approved_approvers milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_user_mentions -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_user_mentions description has been updated -
merge_request_user_mentions milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_diff_files -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_diff_files description has been updated -
merge_request_diff_files milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_request_diff_commits -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_request_diff_commits description has been updated -
merge_request_diff_commits milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
merge_requests_closing_issues -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
merge_requests_closing_issues description has been updated -
merge_requests_closing_issues milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
-
suggestions -
code_review is the correct feature category or has been updated -
suggestions description has been updated -
suggestions milestone
andintroduced_by_url
seem accurate
-
Why is this effort happening?
There have been many times that issues occur in production, but the the infrastructure team doesn't have the information it needs to identify subject matter experts who can help resolve things quickly. This in turn can delay the time it takes to find and fix pressing issues.
How much time should we expect to spend on this?
Depends, if the team has a lot of tables, it may take a little bit to get all of the information together. If not, this could be very fast. The descriptions are as much or little as the team wants to add. More information may help folks self service better.
How urgent is this?
The urgency is up to the team. If the tables have poor information or are misassigned, that may cause more burden on the team when answering questions.