Database Change Template

[comatt1]

I am going through a process of effectively coming up with a word .dot file to allow developers send me database/table/field/trigger/ANYTHING change requests; adds, mods, removals of anything from the schema.

This is a circumstance where I would find anything other than word easier, but if someone knows of one, could you send it my way to look?

If you have anything completed, that definately won't be declined, regardless of application used.

Assuming, nobody has anything, what could be the best way to accomplish this. Personally, WORD templates are something I am far from being proficient in, so my instinct is to look elsewhere.

Does anyone know of an app, or have one, that allows a developer to send a schema change request along with the required changes (allowing them to enter any/all of the parameters available within Progress db schema)?

Thanks, in advanced,

Matt

 

[tamhas]

A lot depends here on the context. If you have developers creating changes in their own databases and writing code against that and then needing to request a change to the production database so that the code is implemented, the most natural thing to send you would be an incremental .df. Painless to create and exactly what you need to make the change.

 

[comatt1]

This is more along the lines of to create our functional (in this case) techinical or fechtional specs (fechtional is basically a App Dev request which non-technical users won't see)

Our Dev Lifecycle is such:

• Job Requirements - usually meeting
• Functional Specs - Review - all application development review doc and make comments - this document will contain details based on the assumption end-users could review and make comments/approve
• Technical Specs - Review - all coders examine doc and make comments - this document will contain more details for the other developers regarding what they should expect to see coded
• Code Review - our is allowed about a week to look at code and review and come up with comments, and forward all comments/suggested changes to the team. We argue for a bit.
• Final Code Review - developer sits in a room and goes over the code and how he met certain things the team wanted addressed.

Code is tested on three systems:

1. Development
   1. Prior to code review/the developers are allowed to test the coding done as a group. Once approved:
2. Test
   1. QA/User Acceptance
   2. QA Admin reviews both functional/technical specs to verify that everything has been met, along with users the changes/adds are applicable to
3. Production
   1. Once QA is signed off, it goes to prod.

What I need is a document that would allow programmers, during the technical phase of specification, detail what they need to consider when requesting a new table... any change to schema.

Definitions are great, but this is something that needs to allow the programmers to fully grasp the total options available with each table/db/field and them make judgements based on these options.

If anyone has a similar system, how do you get this done?

 

[tamhas]

Have you considered using UML? Specifically Enterprise Architect? You could document all your requirements there, model the database changes, produce incremental .dfs, model the code, etc., etc. This is a very emerging area, but there is a lot of potential.

 

[comatt1]

We have looked at it, well I have, we have RTB (and probably purchasing PCase already). We aren't limited to something in MCSFT Word, but that is what we have created all the document in.

I was curious if anyone else has done this same thing using a poorly chosen app like WORD?

 

[tamhas]

I'm sure has been done a hundred times in Word and the like, but it may be that no one will bother to say so because the best one can manage is something little different than a xeroxed form, i.e., some rather arbitrary set of boxes in which to put the information, but nothing that relates directly to the purpose or function. UML, on the other hand, is expressly designed for the purpose and as we get ABL specific constructs built on top of it, it is even well designed for the purpose.

Check out http://www.oehive.org/taxonomy/term/168 and searching on PSDN for UML, if you haven't already.