Owner mapping - one to many

• 
  Sounds like you need the table mappings tab, which lets you map individual tables as long as there aren't too many to click through.
  
  Cheers,

  sam.blackburn August 25, 2016 10:42

  - 0 +
• 
  There are literally THOUSANDS of tables!
  
  I don't understand why I can't do it in owner mapping.

  PaulOckenden August 25, 2016 12:39

  - 0 +
• 
  We're wondering how we could design this kind of feature - how do you think a one-to-many owner mappings feature could look in the UI?

  sam.blackburn August 30, 2016 04:41

  - 0 +
• 
  In the bit at the bottom (unmapped stuff) you can currently select just one item from the left and one from the right and hit the map button.
  
  I think it should allow you to select more than one owner from the source database.
  
  e.g.
  [dbo] |
  [UserA] |
  | [dbo]
  
  I should be able to select all three rows, and hit map.
  
  This would then create TWO mappings in the table above:
  
  [dbo] -> [dbo]
  [UserA] -> [dbo]
  
  Does that make sense?
  
  (The other option would be to go in and tinker with the saved project definition files prior to deployment - then you wouldn't have to build a UI, but not sure whether this is feasible.)
  
  Thanks,
  
  P.

  PaulOckenden August 30, 2016 05:20

  - 0 +
• 
  Thanks for your help in clarifying the expected behaviour - it's tricky for us to work out what our users want!
  
  The difficult part here is that Compare will behave unpredictably if there are tables with the same name in both schemas. For example, the source table might have a [dbo].[tableA] and a [UserA].[tableA] - we're not sure how Compare should behave in that case. Any ideas?

  sam.blackburn August 30, 2016 07:20

  - 0 +
• 
  Well, I guess that in this instance although you could have two source tables named the same with different schemas, you'd only have one in the target database (because you only have a single schema).
  
  So for the tables on the left hand side one would match and one would fail during comparison.
  
  I wonder whether another way to tackle this would be to have an 'ignore schema' in the options? But with a note saying that option can only be used when table names are unique between schemas. perhaps that might be easier from a UI point of view, and also easier for people to understand.
  
  P.

  PaulOckenden August 30, 2016 07:31

  - 0 +
• 
  So it sounds like you want an "Ignore Owners" option, and Compare should error if there are two tables in the same database with the same name?
  
  I think this might work, although we should think carefully before adding another option to the UI to avoid worsening the task of verifying that your options are set correctly.
  
  We'll soon be deciding what features to work on after we release Compare 12 to the default channel, so it's really useful to know what kinds of features should be on our list.

  sam.blackburn August 30, 2016 12:59

  - 0 +
• 
  That's great - thanks Sam.
  
  I always work on the theory that if one customer (or potential customer) asks for something, there will usually be a load more that are too shy to ask!
  
  P.

  PaulOckenden August 30, 2016 13:50

  - 0 +
• 
  If you think there are others with the same needs, creating a UserVoice request would enormously help us gauge the number of users who would like this feature.

  sam.blackburn August 31, 2016 04:44

  - 0 +

Add comment

Please sign in to leave a comment.