Feature/metadata dtdl #32
Conversation
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "@type": "Property", | ||
| "name": "Kind", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Kind could be removed since denoted by concrete subtype of the twin.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need the info so the other node will also have it in the future (with twin sync) the subtypes are only available on the owning side.
| "contents": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "@type": "Property", | ||
| "name": "Disabled", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Soft-delete flags are often only properties on the persisted backend properties since instances won't be served anymore at APIs after deletion.
Not sure how to handle this with twins though...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we could add them to the $metadata and store them there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't get the point. What's the issue with the property Disabled?
| @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "@context": "dtmi:dtdl:context;2", | |||
| "@id": "dtmi:io:tributech:publication:public;1", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The properties Disabled and Requests are common with dtmi:io:tributech:publication:restricted;1 and should be moved to the base.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
request info should only be available on the owing node same for soft delete
DTDL/node.json
Outdated
| "name": "Publications", | ||
| "minMultiplicity": 0, | ||
| "maxMultiplicity": 100, | ||
| "target": "dtmi:io:tributech:publication;1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to either reference the new base publication or add two relationships for the concrete types.
mayrmax
force-pushed
the
feature/metadata_dtdl
branch
from
874cce9 to
fd3c261
Compare
| "minMultiplicity": 0, | ||
| "maxMultiplicity": 1, | ||
| "target": "dtmi:io:tributech:node;1", | ||
| "displayName": "Initiator Node", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With this naming for the fields (InitiatorNode and TargetNode) it's not obvious for me how a flow A -> B would look like:
Request:
- Initiator: B
- Target: A ??
Subscription: - Initiator: B
- Target: A ??
Maybe something like Source and Target would be a better fit...
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "@type": "Relationship", | ||
| "name": "RequestedStreams", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Streams could be moved to base for Request/Subscription since there is no difference at the moment.
| "name": "Initiator", | ||
| "minMultiplicity": 0, | ||
| "maxMultiplicity": 1, | ||
| "target": "dtmi:io:tributech:user;1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could not find dtmi:io:tributech:user.
| @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "@context": "dtmi:dtdl:context;2", | |||
| "@id": "dtmi:io:tributech:publication:public;1", | |||
| "contents": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "@type": "Property", | ||
| "name": "Disabled", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't get the point. What's the issue with the property Disabled?
mayrmax
force-pushed
the
feature/metadata_dtdl
branch
from
fd3c261 to
efa6f8e
Compare
No description provided.