Re: Applications processed + future renewals

[Eric Baudais <baudais kkpsi org>]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:59:25 -0500, Eric Baudais a ecrit :
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 04:56:42PM +0100, Ghee Teo wrote:
> 
> [all the tables used]
> 
> Couldn't we merge these two tables ?
> 
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>  | Field             | Type    | Null | Key | Default | Extra          |
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>  | relation_id       | int(11) |      | PRI | NULL    | auto_increment |
>  | related_assign_id | int(11) |      |     | 0       |                |
>  | related_member_id | int(11) |      |     | 0       |                |
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
> 
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>  | Field             | Type    | Null | Key | Default | Extra          |
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>  | relation_id       | int(11) |      | PRI | NULL    | auto_increment |
>  | related_result_id | int(11) |      |     | 0       |                |
>  | related_member_id | int(11) |      |     | 0       |                |
>  +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
> 
> Apart of this, it seems really nice. I like it.

That sounds like a good suggestion.

> 
> > The suggestion of having a separate applications table depends on what
> > information is going to be entered in the table.  If the application
> > table is supposed to contain the application from the web form then it
> > makes sense.  However if the application table will just duplicate
> > most of the information in the member's table then it doesn't.  You
> > would be duplicating the same information in two different tables.
> 
> I'd like to have an "application" table with alle the informations in an
> application so we could point the last application of a member. Might
> be useful. This way we could see the application online and just click
> to say accept or deny...

I don't think you need to have an appliations table in the database.  It will 
not be hard to just display the applications by searching for the undetermined 
status of the members.  I could make a separate page which just displays the 
active applications.
 
> I'd like to migrate to the database soon, but we should really test the
> thing before. What has to be done before we can test it ?

I need to integrate these changes and get the email notification system done 
before I'm ready to test it.  Unfortunately I don't have a net connection so 
I don't know when this will be done.  Maybe in another month.

Eric Baudais