From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM,
	URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from [192.168.221.80] (unknown [182.2.68.109])
	by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7B357E718;
	Wed, 15 Jun 2022 10:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org;
	s=default; t=1655287420;
	bh=h/0eX5ZEKT7GFEcejmC+gNGe8R9mGvnJWfnzol5HWBc=;
	h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=idxHKrasQjvEORGQeLZBLuYgojaeFPJAXl9xtCGzz1lHO2XrDG+mhNZkCWUzF/hNc
	 VYhzDJKyN3I3sKxSHl5aOhmUPb8jfwW75jSP/PeH3fLqyLpcRBPpsle/6fMkgEQi5y
	 3iQsey6a5cYrpueDXoJA72SbJzq6eVLFuhxjHOPv0Mn4muKN8seoT1/QloqoLaCCTU
	 dRYxYY3bf9x/SmKR6VRSVPJFs+dBhKgKIeM1gFQcBO1srWqp34nI4O3tmD3A+f/jjT
	 TwqpVQnmf7Bn3L6DZug3wUnM9UysL1Nt4AM7opu92gysJGhxD7c2VMazX9KnI4w5GN
	 xzk6abnWx6mxw==
Message-ID: <6cc95454-7a0e-6559-ed21-1e40f9ad19c8@gnuweeb.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:03:35 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [RFC] GNU/Weeb Financial Transaction Record Design
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>
Cc: GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>
References: <CAOG64qNV-TnS6yA4fDRBypk1SxyibQT36OheCM83w2HW_NCX8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1dc7ad7c-914a-001c-1d7c-fc8433e9b609@gnuweeb.org>
 <CAOG64qP9T2aCBPEgE7L-00S1ogh+mBkhU3-nej-4rxvdXQRQaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG64qP9T2aCBPEgE7L-00S1ogh+mBkhU3-nej-4rxvdXQRQaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: <gwml.vger.gnuweeb.org>

On 6/15/22 5:00 PM, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan wrote:
>>    2) How do we maintain a new field in the future if we ever add more?
> 
> Maybe just make them be an empty string. Appending an empty string
> won't change the hash because it doesn't change anything. For example,
> we create a new field x, make it nullable, if it's NULL then when
> we're validating the old records that don't have this field just treat
> it as an empty string, it won't change the hash, so it's backward
> compatible.

Not sure how will it look like. I am looking forward to the patchset then.

-- 
Ammar Faizi