add metadata fields for floor_seq, connection_type, tags #885
Conversation
schema/model_pointset_point.json
Outdated
| "tags": { | ||
| "description": "Descriptor for the point", | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "examples": ["lighting", "lighting,building"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Array of strings seems better than a singular CSV string? Also consider a (restricted) regex for this (e.g. only [a-z] for actual tag names)... ? I generally fret about fields like this because they end up getting conscripted to do nefarious things. Also, what's the future proofing here? singular string tags are nice but also very limiting, and typically the NEXT thing that people want to do is key=value pairs, so the question comes down to "should we just start with key=value pairs and skip over tags completely" -- rather than support two structures in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
after our quick chat I understand "why not k=v", but then the question remains about "why a CSV rather than a list/array"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed into a list of alphanumeric string values
schema/model_pointset_point.json
Outdated
| @@ -42,6 +42,16 @@ | |||
| "description": "Mapping for the point to an internal resource (e.g. BACnet object reference)", | |||
| "type": "string", | |||
| "examples": ["AI3", "400070"] | |||
| }, | |||
| "translation": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
erm, not comfortable with this ATM since there's already the concept of translations in the gateway config schema and other places, so I'd want to make sure this is coherent with the overall structure of things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed translation into mapping and an object type, with one property name.
schema/metadata.json
Outdated
| "type": "array", | ||
| "uniqueItems": true, | ||
| "items": { | ||
| "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9]+$" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
include _? Just to consider... git tags at least allow underscore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
didn't we think about excluding A-Z for now?
No description provided.