183216 - Missing link for the database schema

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect, P5)

Description

[Jerry Uanino]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; YComp 5.0.0.0)
Build Identifier: 

The documentation on www.bugzilla.org used to have a gif or jpeg image of the 
database schema.  This appears to be missing and is a broken link now off the 
documentation.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. go to http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/html/
2. click on B.1. section (Database Schema Chart)


Actual Results:  
404 error

Comment 1

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Confirmed, image file is gone (I remember it seeing it get cvs removed a while
back because it was way outdated) but the link from the index is still there. 
Might want to at least add a note to the index that it's gone until someone
volunteers a new one.

Comment 2

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

*** Bug 185426 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Matthew is still going to be around to help out, but Jake is taking over the
day-to-day front-line triage type stuff for Documentation

Comment 4

[Jacob Steenhagen]

I seem to remember seeing something on the newsgroup about somebody working on
an updated image, but I'm don't recall how recent that was or what the results were.

Comment 5

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Jake is leaving for a while (Reserve unit got called up), and we don't have a
new docs owner yet.  Anyone interested in helping out, please add
[e-mail] to your watch list in your email preferences in Bugzilla.

Comment 6

[Vlad Dascalu]

Bug 238628 is related to this (but for the 2.16 branch)

Comment 7

[Niels Reedijk]

Would a link to
http://www.ravenbrook.com/project/p4dti/master/design/bugzilla-schema/ be a good
idea/alternative?

(See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=database+schema+group:netscape.public.mozilla.webtools&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=netscape.public.mozilla.webtools&selm=mailman.1079716264.5836.mozilla-webtools%40mozilla.org&rnum=1
)

Comment 8

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

yes, I think it would.  We should probably link to that anyway, regardless of
whether we eventually get a real ERD.  It's a pretty valuable resource.

Comment 9

[Jerry Uanino]

that would be very useful.

Comment 10

[Matthew Barnson]

Accepting bug; will link to p4dti site. 

Comment 11

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Attachment: work-in-progress (not complete)

Comment 12

[Jerry Uanino]

what format is the attachment in?

Comment 13

[Shane H. W. Travis]

Attachment: 2.16 schema, in .jpg form, for perusal and comment.

I offered to update the database schema for 2.16 about 6 months ago, but then
didn't have the time I thought I would. I started it, though, and recently had
the time to finish it.

The original version was done in Corel Draw. Some people have told me I should
use 'dia' since it's also open source and free, but I wasn't able to work with
it well (only machine I could get installed on ran like a pregnant pig) and the
bit of work I could do did not leave me with a favourable impression of it. You
can get early versions of Corel Draw free in cereal boxes now, and this SHOULD
open up in them just fine (nothing hugely fancy within).

I know this isn't as much use now that Bugzilla is well on its way to 2.18
shortly, but I'm hoping that I'll be able to update this diagram again we
switch to 2.18 locally and I learn more about its new functionality.

So, please feel free to comment/critique. Of note already: I doubt I'll be able
to get all of 2.18 onto a single page, so the next version SHOULD be less
cramped.

Comment 14

[Christopher Hicks]

Thanks for this.  Good job.

Comment 15

[Shane H. W. Travis]

Comment on attachment 160003 [details]
2.16 schema, in .jpg form, for perusal and comment.

Vlad, Dave says you're the most active person of those working on documentation
just now, so I'm tossing this one your way and asking for a once-over.

Comment 16

[Shane H. W. Travis]

Comment on attachment 160003 [details]
2.16 schema, in .jpg form, for perusal and comment.

requesting review from Documentation, because it's the right thing to do and to
get it into that queue. (Probably should have done that instead; still new to
this whole 'review' procedure.)

Comment 17

[Nick Barnes]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Would a link to
> http://www.ravenbrook.com/project/p4dti/master/design/bugzilla-schema/ be a good
> idea/alternative?

Not any more.  <http://www.ravenbrook.com/project/p4dti/tool/cgi/bugzilla-schema/>
(although that document would certainly be complemented by a diagram).

As it happens I have a tool for drawing graphs which I could apply to this
problem (and even automatically generate a schema diagram, whoo).  It's a SMOP....

Comment 18

[Jacob Steenhagen]

The section where the schema was at no longer exists in 2.18/tip docs. Is the
image here more accurate than the one that already exists in the 2.16 docs
(http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.16/html/dbschema.html)?

Comment 19

[Shane H. W. Travis]

(In reply to comment #18)
> The section where the schema was at no longer exists in 2.18/tip docs.

Correct. It is only gone because it was outdated, not because it was a bad 
idea. As per justdave in comment #1, "it's gone until someone volunteers a new 
one."

> Is the
> image here more accurate than the one that already exists in the 2.16 docs

Yes, significantly. (of course, I'm biased... but I know that I dumped a 2.16.2 
database and created this image around a compound of that information layered 
on top of the old chart as a base.)

I have found one small mis-named field since the initial upload ('attachments' 
instead of 'attach', or somesuch) and fixed it in my local copy. I will upload 
the latest version -- and the Corel file used to generate it -- within the next 
48 hours.

Comment 20

[Jacob Steenhagen]

Accuracy is a good thing... if there's errors on the current one, replacing it
is a good thing :). Though, honestly, even if there aren't errors, the one in
attachment 160003 [details] does look better, IMHO. I have to ask, though, what program is
it done in?

Also, any plans to do one for 2.18?

Comment 21

[Shane H. W. Travis]

(In reply to comment #20)
> ... the one in attachment 160003 [details] [edit] does look better, IMHO.

Thank you; I put a lot of work into making it 'look pretty'. Visual appeal is 
the main reason I didn't use dia - I didn't mind the learning curve, but the 
result was just so damn fugly...

> I have to ask, though, what program is it done in?

Corel Draw: see comment #13 and comment #19

> Also, any plans to do one for 2.18?

Yes; see comment #13 again. (translation: read da comments, Jake! :)

Was waiting for this one to be reviewed/accepted before I made any move on 2.18 
so I could incorporate any comments made on this one into that one.

Comment 22

[Jacob Steenhagen]

Wanna know what the funny thing is? I did read those comments in the past, I
just didn't think of it when I was writing my comment :).

Anyway, one thing that I like about Dia (in addition to being open source and
working on windows and linux) is that it saves in an XML format (optionally
uncompressed). Though chance are nobody's gonna every wanna use the XML for
anything but loading into Dia, it does make it easier to use CVS and see what's
changed between two revisions.

Though I do agree that it can be a pain to get something to look decent (bug
137631 taught me that).

Comment 23

[Shane H. W. Travis]

Attachment: Bugzilla 2.16 schema, take2

Okay, fixed the one minor bug, and re-published it with less compression but
also a lower dots-per-inch. (It ended up being a little larger, but a lot
cleaner).

This is ready to replace the existing 2.16 schema. I'll start working on a 2.18
visual as time permits.

Comment 24

[Shane H. W. Travis]

Attachment: The original Corel Draw file

This is the Corel Draw (version 10) file used to create the .jpg for this bug.
Vlad thought it would be a good idea to include it, so here it is.

Comment 25

[Jacob Steenhagen]

Comment on attachment 168978 [details]
Bugzilla 2.16 schema, take2

I didn't take the time to review each individual table list or line, but in my
quick glance it all appears to be correct. This image also only required the
standard 66% scale instead of the 40% that's being used on the current image.

Also, the PDF file is actually slightly smaller when using this image over the
old one.

Comment 26

[Jacob Steenhagen]

RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/images/Attic/dbschema.cdr,v
done
Checking in images/dbschema.cdr;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/images/Attic/dbschema.cdr,v  <-- 
dbschema.cdr
new revision: 1.1.2.1; previous revision: 1.1
done
Checking in images/dbschema.jpg;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/images/Attic/dbschema.jpg,v  <-- 
dbschema.jpg
new revision: 1.1.12.1; previous revision: 1.1
done
Removing images/dbschema.ps;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/images/Attic/dbschema.ps,v  <--  dbschema.ps
new revision: delete; previous revision: 1.1
done
Checking in xml/database.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/Attic/database.xml,v  <--  database.xml
new revision: 1.7.2.4; previous revision: 1.7.2.3
done

*** I removed dbschema.ps because I couldn't find any reason for it to exist.
The docs directly use the JPG file.

Filed bug 275155 to track the 2.18 image.

Comment 27

[Christopher Hicks]

(In reply to comment #26)
> *** I removed dbschema.ps because I couldn't find any reason for it to exist.
> The docs directly use the JPG file.

Wouldn't it be handy to have it there for folks trying to produce printable
versions of the docs?  Can't the style sheet be told to use the .ps for
printable things?

Comment 28

[Jacob Steenhagen]

Well, either way, the .ps file that was there was outdated. But the PDF version
is a printable version of the docs. If there are other printable versions that
only work w/.ps files, then perhaps we could produce one.