You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For more flexibility with the data model, we should move blocks into their own collection instead of having them live as embedded documents in the blocks_obj field of an item.
Need to decide:
The ids for the blocks. Currently, they are randomly generated HTML-friendly strings, but we could choose to use the mongo ObjectIDs
Blocks could potentially be associated with more than one sample (or other item). We should probably change the item_id field to something like item_ids and then also store the block id in each item it is associated for so that there is two-way referencing of the items and blocks.
If we do this, perhaps a block should still have (the option of) having a "primary" item_id
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For more flexibility with the data model, we should move blocks into their own collection instead of having them live as embedded documents in the
blocks_obj
field of an item.Need to decide:
The ids for the blocks. Currently, they are randomly generated HTML-friendly strings, but we could choose to use the mongo ObjectIDs
Blocks could potentially be associated with more than one sample (or other item). We should probably change the
item_id
field to something likeitem_ids
and then also store the block id in each item it is associated for so that there is two-way referencing of the items and blocks.item_id
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: