On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Marc Delisle marc@infomarc.info wrote:

Le 2014-07-23 22:39, Hugues Peccatte a écrit :

...

2014-07-23 20:22 GMT+02:00 Ashutosh Dhundhara <ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com mailto:ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com>:

Hi,

This is in regards with RFE #919
<http://sourceforge.net/p/phpmyadmin/feature-requests/919/>

(Multiple-column

...

foreign key relation). I was trying to figure out the UI for this by
modifying the existing one. I have attached a screenshot for the

same.

...

Please comment.

--
Ashutosh Dhundhara

Hi,

This is nice. IMO the constraint name should be displayed as a title, and not displayed in the bottom-right corner, so you will see it easily. Maybe, you can reduce table rows height, by displaying the ON UPDATE and DELETE on the same line.

Hugues.

Hi Ashutosh, somehow I missed your initial email but saw the screenshot in the archives.

The UI you are proposing does not work, in my opinion. On the left side, you are proposing multiple columns, but the feature request is about having, on the left side, one column, and on the foreign key constraint side (right), multiple columns.

Hi Marc,

can you please quote an example of this case?

Are you talking about a case like this:

Lets say I have two tables `table_1` and `table_2` with two columns `id` and `value`. The query: ALTER TABLE `table_2` ADD FOREIGN KEY (`id`) REFERENCES `table_1` (`id`, `value`);

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Marc Delisle marc@infomarc.info wrote:

Le 2014-07-24 06:01, Ashutosh Dhundhara a écrit :

...

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Marc Delisle <marc@infomarc.info mailto:marc@infomarc.info> wrote:

Le 2014-07-23 22:39, Hugues Peccatte a écrit :
> 2014-07-23 20:22 GMT+02:00 Ashutosh Dhundhara
> <ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com <mailto:ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com>
<mailto:ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com
<mailto:ashutoshdhundhara@yahoo.com>>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     This is in regards with RFE #919
>     <http://sourceforge.net/p/phpmyadmin/feature-requests/919/>
(Multiple-column
>     foreign key relation). I was trying to figure out the UI for
this by
>     modifying the existing one. I have attached a screenshot for
the same.
>     Please comment.
>
>     --
>     Ashutosh Dhundhara
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is nice.
> IMO the constraint name should be displayed as a title, and not
> displayed in the bottom-right corner, so you will see it easily.
> Maybe, you can reduce table rows height, by displaying the ON
UPDATE and
> DELETE on the same line.
>
> Hugues.

Hi Ashutosh,
somehow I missed your initial email but saw the screenshot in the
archives.

The UI you are proposing does not work, in my opinion. On the left

side,

...

you are proposing multiple columns, but the feature request is about
having, on the left side, one column, and on the foreign key

constraint

...

side (right), multiple columns.

Hi Marc,

can you please quote an example of this case?

Are you talking about a case like this:

Lets say I have two tables `table_1` and `table_2` with two columns `id` and `value`. The query: ALTER TABLE `table_2` ADD FOREIGN KEY (`id`) REFERENCES `table_1` (`id`, `value`);

Hi Ashutosh, yes, I was thinking about a case like this but I reverified in http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/create-table-foreign-keys.html and it does not look to be possible.

So your UI is correct, in general, except that I suggest that instead of numbering the relations (1, 2), you just use some visual divider like a horizontal line. Numbering would introduce a doubt about the order of the foreign keys, which does not exist (each FK is independent from the others).

Yeah, you are right. This looks a bit confusing. I will try some visual divider.

I have a few questions about your screenshot:

• Does it represent the case when a user is trying to add constraints to

table_2 ?

Yes. This represents the case when user is trying to add constraints to `table_2`.

• Why did the user match table_1.value for the id column, and table_1.id

for the value column? Taking the MySQL manual as an example, it's much easier to understand this:

FOREIGN KEY (product_category, product_id) REFERENCES product(category, id)

Yes Marc, your example is relevant. I did this because my table structures were as follows:

`table_1` id : int value : varchar

`table_2` id : varchar value : int

Thats why table_2.id is compatible with table_1.id. I will share another improved UI screenshot soon.