BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).

It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.

I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.

Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:23

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

[…]

It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.

Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

However, that actually would require data and some real coding.

Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.

At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.

Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).

Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:48

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

The Years Released data for parts and sets only refers to the year they were
FIRST released, not all the years they were produced and available in stores.

The old Death Star 10188 only has 2008 as its Year, even though it was produced
for many years after that.

Is that what you are asking?

Jen

Thank you, but I still find it confusing. Because the base plate 48x48 gray is
indicated as "Years Released: 1980 - 2016".

I would interpret this as a "final" production year (which is wrong), Similar
for 3811 (at least saying 1978-2018).

A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 15:29

Subject:

Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Selling, StormChaser writes:

[…]
Until I get around to addressing this issue, part assemblies are kind of up
in the air.

This one seems more 6 ft under than up in the air.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 14:52

Subject:

Re: Q about (Other) Minifigures Have Moved!

Viewed:

27 times

Topic: