Is it normal to design a database without writing an analysts first but basing it on the design?

@[email protected] · 11 months ago

Is it normal to design a database without writing an analysts first but basing it on the design?

@monomon · 11 months ago

As others said, in-depth design is often skipped, especially if the dev team started very small. Sounds like your intuition is right, though - the lack of design bit them on the ass when they realized they missed a part.

I have also been laughed at when I suggested a UML diagram in the past. However, it is helpful. For more visually oriented people even more so.

I’d suggest to go ahead and do it, unless your boss is adamant that it is a waste of time. When they see the result they might be happy.

@[email protected] · edit-2 11 months ago

EDIT: writing it out, I swear, makes no sense at all

Oh I’m not the one who designed the DB, I just implement the endpoints and stuff for this particular project (my role is that of a FE dev).

I asked cause:

they were saying that between me and my coworker, who actively work on the project, and the DB designer, the communication is poor. Which is obviously true since we were handed out the DB with an oral, confused, explanation for a complex DB so we have to ask a lot of questions or ask for very small fixes (sometimes a column is missing etc, nothing that important though);
they didn’t foresee how interconnected the part 1 and part 2 were. Let me explain how stupid this is: the data from part 1 are mostly read only, which are provided from part2. We knew about this from day one, but it was never added to the visual design [which to this day is still in the making, so it’s incomplete]… and neither to the DB.
when they actually went to work on part 2 - months later we had the green light to work on the project - they had this sudden realisation: the data are interconnected, we have to rework part 1! (which would have been completely avoidable)

@atheken · 11 months ago

I understand the predicament you are in, but I don’t know that you’ll get very far with your current approach.

The actual artifact you need from your collaboration is the list of API endpoints and the structure of what the request and response payload will look like for each one. This doesn’t need to be UML, it can literally be a text doc.

By asking for something highly structured that the other people may not know how to make, or do not have the tools to make, you’re putting them in a position where they have to acknowledge that they don’t know how to do something, or causing them to do work that they don’t value. Once you’ve had success on a team and developed trust/respect, you can push for adding process/tooling, but if you’re new to a team, you really have to work with what you’ve got.

Either of you could write a simple doc outlining the API and then collaborate on that (it’s also much easier to actually comment/collaborate on than a diagram, anyway).

@[email protected] · 11 months ago

I think you misunderstood, I’m the one implementing the API and writing the queries - alongside a coworker that doesn’t have BE experience. I’m not the one who made the DB though, neither is he, and the design is not very reliable

@atheken · 11 months ago

You said you were in the role of the “front end dev”. I presumed a structure of an API (usually implemented by a “backend dev”), and a UI (usually implemented by a “front end dev”).

My advice still stands:

You need to clarify the interface where each of your responsibilities are handed off.

If you are implementing the API, you can still produce the same document and then you need to get the other people that need to use it to verify that they can build what they’re doing from that. This means they will need to map the data from the API into the UI elements they need to provide. It also means that someone will need to see how that data will be sourced from the database, and identify anything that is not available in the database.