Add Files (attachment feature)

[JieXiong9119]

Any background context you want to provide?

This PR was motivated by both the feature request in this ticket, and one of the proposed (possible) solutions of addressing complex mapping with Std 229P.

What does this PR do?

See proposal

How should this be manually tested?

TO DO

What are the relevant tickets?

#391 #514

Screenshots (if appropriate)

[markborkum]

We should think about how files are linked to premises, systems, measures, etc. Perhaps, auc:File/auc:LinkedPremises and/or auc:File/auc:LinkedSystemIDs child elements.

An example use case is photographs of buildings, pieces of equipment, deficiencies that are addressed by measures.

[haneslinger]

It would be rather helpful to me if the proposal contained a little snippet of what this would look like in a real buildingsync file. Is it like this?

<auc:Building ID="Building-1">
  <!-- ... -->
  <auc:Files>
    <auc:File ID="File-1">
      <auc:FileName>north.png</auc:FileName>
      <auc:FileDescription>View of north face of building</auc:FileDescription>
      <auc:FileContentType>image/png</auc:FileContentType>
      <auc:FileSize>1024</auc:FileSize>
      <auc:FileSHA1Checksum>2fd4e1c67a2d28fced849ee1bb76e7391b93eb12</auc:FileSHA1Checksum>
      <auc:FileURL>https://www.example.com/buildings/1/north.png</auc:FileURL>
    </auc:File>
  </auc:Files>
  <!-- ... -->
</auc:Building>

[JieXiong9119]

It would be rather helpful to me if the proposal contained a little snippet of what this would look like in a real buildingsync file. Is it like this?

<auc:Building ID="Building-1">
  <!-- ... -->
  <auc:Files>
    <auc:File ID="File-1">
      <auc:FileName>north.png</auc:FileName>
      <auc:FileDescription>View of north face of building</auc:FileDescription>
      <auc:FileContentType>image/png</auc:FileContentType>
      <auc:FileSize>1024</auc:FileSize>
      <auc:FileSHA1Checksum>2fd4e1c67a2d28fced849ee1bb76e7391b93eb12</auc:FileSHA1Checksum>
      <auc:FileURL>https://www.example.com/buildings/1/north.png</auc:FileURL>
    </auc:File>
  </auc:Files>
  <!-- ... -->
</auc:Building>

Pretty close, but tweaking a bit to use the linking element like this:

<auc:Facility ID="Facility-1">
  <auc:Sites>
    <auc:Site ID="Site-1">
      <auc:Buildings>
        <auc:Building>
          <!-- ... -->
          <auc:LinkedFiles>
            <auc:LinkedFileID IDref="File-1"/>
          </auc:LinkedFiles>
        </auc:Building>
      </auc:Buildings>
    </auc:Site>
  </auc:Sites>
  <!-- ... -->
  <auc:Files>
    <auc:File ID="File-1">
      <auc:FileName>north.png</auc:FileName>
      <auc:FileDescription>View of north face of building</auc:FileDescription>
      <auc:FileContentType>image/png</auc:FileContentType>
      <auc:FileSize>1024</auc:FileSize>
      <auc:FileSHA1Checksum>2fd4e1c67a2d28fced849ee1bb76e7391b93eb12</auc:FileSHA1Checksum>
      <auc:FileURL>https://www.example.com/buildings/1/north.png</auc:FileURL>
    </auc:File>
  </auc:Files>
  <!-- ... -->
</auc:Facility>

I have not got to update the linking element implementation part, but yes I will create an example xml in the end after I finish all the updates in the schema.

[ThibaultMarzullo]

Looks good Jie!

[JieXiong9119]

We should think about how files are linked to premises, systems, measures, etc. Perhaps, auc:File/auc:LinkedPremises and/or auc:File/auc:LinkedSystemIDs child elements.

An example use case is photographs of buildings, pieces of equipment, deficiencies that are addressed by measures.

It's a question I have - should we link file within a premise, or link a premise under a file (like you suggested)?

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum I added the linking elements for the Files to the locations where I think applicable. Would you please review the changes again and let me know your opinions? Thanks.

[markborkum]

If the file size is relatively small, then the rounded size in megabytes would be 0. Consider replacing this with the size in bytes.

Also, since file sizes cannot be negative, should this be xs:nonNegativeInteger?

[JieXiong9119]

Make sense! Updated.

[markborkum]

Consider using \w+/[-.\w]+(?:\+[-.\w]+)? to validate that there is only 1 component after the + symbol.

[JieXiong9119]

I tried your suggestion but it seems that XSD does not support such advanced expression. I substitute with \w+/([-.\w]+|\w+[-.\w]*\+[-.\w]+) to flatten the pattern. Let me know if this looks right to you - I'm totally new to regex thingy.

[markborkum]

Looks good to me. Thanks for addressing my comments, @JieXiong9119.