Good point. However, approaching this problem from "YAGNI" point of view is a bit misleading, I think. If you are not going to need the timestamp, you shouldn't add it to your code base.
In my opinion, hastiness is the culprit. When a property appears to be a binary one, we jump to the conclusion to use a boolean way too quickly. We should instead stop and ask ourselves if we are really dealing with a situation that can be reduced to a single bit. The point raised by the article is a good example: you may want to record the state change as timestamp. Moreover, in a lot of the cases, the answer is not even binary. The values for is_published may be, "Yes", "No" or "I don't know" (and then we will be too quick to assign null to "I don't know"). Underlying problem is that we don't spend enough time when modeling our problems. And this is a sure way of accumulating technical debt.
Good point. However, approaching this problem from “YAGNI” point of view is a bit misleading, I think. If you are not going to need the timestamp, you shouldn’t add it to your code base.
I don't agree it was a good point. It sounds like the blog author missed a requirement a few times, and after getting repeatedly burned in the requirements gathering stage he now overcompensates previous failing with I'll advised usages of timestamps instead of booleans.
YAGNI is always true. Always. The author's point, even when timestamps end up being required, are moot.
Also, if state changes are required them you don't tack on a timestamp to a row. You instead track events, including switching stuff on and off.
I feel this blog post is bad advise fueled by trauma.
Only really makes any sense for flags that go from false to true and don't go back often. And even then it has huge semantic cost. How do you distinguish a "boolean timestamp" from an actual timestamp? Is "modified at" a flag indicating a pending modification or a timestamp when it was last modified?
Much better to just have two columns, so e.g. you can see "enabled" and an 'enabled_date" that indicates when you last enabled/disabled the entity.
Much better to just have two columns, so e.g. you can see “enabled” and an 'enabled_date" that indicates when you last enabled/disabled the entity.
That sounds good until you realize you now have two sources of truth, do you trust enabled or enabled_date? If you really want to go this route enabled should be a virtual field that checks enabled_date in the background so you can have the boolean semantics but still keep a single field.
I also used booleans a lot previously but since using Laravel I have come to enjoy the updated_at, created_at and deleted_at fields that it automatically creates and I follow this format as well now if I need more.
Ehhh, I don't quite agree with this. I've done the same thing where I used a timestamp field to replace a boolean. However, they are technically not the same thing. In databases, boolean fields can be nullable so you actually have 3-valued boolean logic: true, false, and null. You can technically only replace a non-nullable field to a timestamp column because you are treating null in timestamp as false.
Two examples:
A table of generated documents for employees to sign. There's a field where they need to agree to something, but it's optional. You want to differentiate between employees who agreed, employees who disagreed, and employees who have yet to agree. You can't change the column from is_agreed to agreed_at.
Adding a boolean column to an existing table. These columns need to either default to an value (which is fair) or be nullable.
Using a nullable Boolean to represent 3 distinct states just adds confusion and complexity to your system. In most cases I would prefer to use an enum with 3 fields which is non nullable.
To add to this: the DBMS may treat null as unknown rather than not set. This may be not immediately obvious or noticeable, but it means a check requires different syntax and even double checks for set and value. Using null as 'cleared' goes against the DBMS definition of what null means.
As a side note: this difference in null behavior can become especially problematic when you use entity frame for to map tables and sql queries to C#. Because it's not obvious and may not be known or seen.
Yeah, this feels like "premature optimization". When you design your applications and databases, it should reflect your understanding of the problem and how you solved it as best as possible. Using DATETIMEOFFSET NULL when you actually mean BIT NOT NULL isn't saying what you mean. If you already understand that you have a boolean option and you think you might need a timestamp to track it, use 2 columns. Or an audit table. So sayeth the holy SRP.
How do you update it to unoublish?
Add another timestamp column and who's the latest win or just set published_at to null?
You wouldn't store this information on the same table (unless you're using a wide row db like dynamo/Cassandra). In a SQL world, you'd store version information in a separate table - one table for the HEAD state and another for history.
So, the history table have every column, but the user table has only user id and version, right?
Good point. However, approaching this problem from "YAGNI" point of view is a bit misleading, I think. If you are not going to need the timestamp, you shouldn't add it to your code base.
In my opinion, hastiness is the culprit. When a property appears to be a binary one, we jump to the conclusion to use a boolean way too quickly. We should instead stop and ask ourselves if we are really dealing with a situation that can be reduced to a single bit. The point raised by the article is a good example: you may want to record the state change as timestamp. Moreover, in a lot of the cases, the answer is not even binary. The values for
is_publishedmay be, "Yes", "No" or "I don't know" (and then we will be too quick to assignnullto "I don't know"). Underlying problem is that we don't spend enough time when modeling our problems. And this is a sure way of accumulating technical debt.I don't agree it was a good point. It sounds like the blog author missed a requirement a few times, and after getting repeatedly burned in the requirements gathering stage he now overcompensates previous failing with I'll advised usages of timestamps instead of booleans.
YAGNI is always true. Always. The author's point, even when timestamps end up being required, are moot.
Also, if state changes are required them you don't tack on a timestamp to a row. You instead track events, including switching stuff on and off.
I feel this blog post is bad advise fueled by trauma.
Only really makes any sense for flags that go from false to true and don't go back often. And even then it has huge semantic cost. How do you distinguish a "boolean timestamp" from an actual timestamp? Is "modified at" a flag indicating a pending modification or a timestamp when it was last modified?
Much better to just have two columns, so e.g. you can see "enabled" and an 'enabled_date" that indicates when you last enabled/disabled the entity.
That sounds good until you realize you now have two sources of truth, do you trust
enabledorenabled_date? If you really want to go this routeenabledshould be a virtual field that checksenabled_datein the background so you can have the boolean semantics but still keep a single field.I also used booleans a lot previously but since using Laravel I have come to enjoy the
updated_at,created_atanddeleted_atfields that it automatically creates and I follow this format as well now if I need more.Ehhh, I don't quite agree with this. I've done the same thing where I used a timestamp field to replace a boolean. However, they are technically not the same thing. In databases, boolean fields can be nullable so you actually have 3-valued boolean logic:
true,false, andnull. You can technically only replace a non-nullable field to a timestamp column because you are treatingnullin timestamp asfalse.Two examples:
A table of generated documents for employees to sign. There's a field where they need to agree to something, but it's optional. You want to differentiate between employees who agreed, employees who disagreed, and employees who have yet to agree. You can't change the column from
is_agreedtoagreed_at.Adding a boolean column to an existing table. These columns need to either default to an value (which is fair) or be nullable.
Using a nullable Boolean to represent 3 distinct states just adds confusion and complexity to your system. In most cases I would prefer to use an enum with 3 fields which is non nullable.
To add to this: the DBMS may treat null as unknown rather than not set. This may be not immediately obvious or noticeable, but it means a check requires different syntax and even double checks for set and value. Using null as 'cleared' goes against the DBMS definition of what null means.
Sql server docs
As a side note: this difference in null behavior can become especially problematic when you use entity frame for to map tables and sql queries to C#. Because it's not obvious and may not be known or seen.
Yeah, this feels like "premature optimization". When you design your applications and databases, it should reflect your understanding of the problem and how you solved it as best as possible. Using
DATETIMEOFFSET NULLwhen you actually meanBIT NOT NULLisn't saying what you mean. If you already understand that you have a boolean option and you think you might need a timestamp to track it, use 2 columns. Or an audit table. So sayeth the holy SRP.How do you update it to unoublish? Add another timestamp column and who's the latest win or just set published_at to null?
You wouldn't store this information on the same table (unless you're using a wide row db like dynamo/Cassandra). In a SQL world, you'd store version information in a separate table - one table for the HEAD state and another for history.
So, the history table have every column, but the user table has only user id and version, right?
user_history table user table