Facilitated Management of Serial numbers: Difference between revisions

Line 37:

{{Discuss |

* Would anyone see a problem if we standardized this to using one serial number pool per laptop? What would be the problems? Ttenbergen 19:55, 2020 June 2 (CDT)

** if you follow the higher number sequence per laptop (discontinue the lower one). There will be no problem for unique record. However, those outstanding (incompletes) wards with lower number sequence will become orphans in the master database which Pagasa has to delete. I think the deletion will be easy and Pagasa need not crosscheck at all or confirm with the DC - simply delete the ones with lower serial number. The ~~throwback~~ for following the higher sequence order (currently 5 digits) is the growing number of digits over time which consequently has an effect on D_ID.

** if you follow the higher number sequence per laptop (discontinue the lower one). There will be no problem for unique record. However, those outstanding (incompletes) wards with lower number sequence will become orphans in the master database which Pagasa has to delete. I think the deletion will be easy and Pagasa need not crosscheck at all or confirm with the DC - simply delete the ones with lower serial number. The drawback for following the higher sequence order (currently 5 digits) is the growing number of digits over time which consequently has an effect on D_ID.

***Another option, have a fresh start with a new lower number (2 or 3 digits) or continue the lower number sequence for all laptops. This would mean changing something to all profiles having laptop identifier (say, make the serial # negative or change the laptop identifier ,e.g. H9 to HS9). Any change for the incompletes will result to orphans and more orphans if this is the option. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 08:48, 2020 June 3 (CDT)}}

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 {{Discuss |
 * Would anyone see a problem if we standardized this to using one serial number pool per laptop? What would be the problems? Ttenbergen 19:55, 2020 June 2 (CDT)
-** if you follow the higher number sequence per laptop (discontinue the lower one). There will be no problem for unique record. However, those outstanding (incompletes)  wards with lower number sequence will become orphans in the master database which Pagasa has to delete. I think the deletion will be easy and Pagasa need not crosscheck at all or confirm with the DC - simply delete the ones with lower serial number. The throwback for following the higher sequence order  (currently 5 digits) is the growing number of digits over time which consequently has an effect on D_ID.
+** if you follow the higher number sequence per laptop (discontinue the lower one). There will be no problem for unique record. However, those outstanding (incompletes)  wards with lower number sequence will become orphans in the master database which Pagasa has to delete. I think the deletion will be easy and Pagasa need not crosscheck at all or confirm with the DC - simply delete the ones with lower serial number. The drawback for following the higher sequence order  (currently 5 digits) is the growing number of digits over time which consequently has an effect on D_ID.
 ***Another option, have a fresh start with a new lower number (2 or 3 digits) or continue the lower number sequence for all laptops.  This would mean  changing something to all profiles having laptop identifier (say,  make the serial # negative or change the laptop identifier ,e.g. H9 to HS9). Any change for the incompletes will result to orphans and more orphans if this is the option.  --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 08:48, 2020 June 3 (CDT)}}