Add comment field to parameters

[ntheanh201]

Closes: #7456

Add field "comment" to parameter

Which Traffic Control components are affected by this PR?

• Traffic Ops
• Traffic Portal

What is the best way to verify this PR?

• Enable show parameters "comment" field in traffic_portal_properties.json: properties.parameters.comment.show = true
• Provisioning CDN in a Box, select Configure/Parameters, 1 more columns "comment" should show
• Create/Update Parameters with "comment"

If this is a bugfix, which Traffic Control versions contained the bug?

PR submission checklist

• This PR has a CHANGELOG.md entry
• This PR DOES NOT FIX A SERIOUS SECURITY VULNERABILITY (see the Apache Software Foundation's security guidelines for details)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 18 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (fa231d7) 65.64% compared to head (c6c3fd7) 31.83%.
Report is 33 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...fic_ops/traffic_ops_golang/parameter/parameters.go	14.28%	18 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #7845       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     65.64%   31.83%   -33.81%     
  Complexity       98       98               
=============================================
  Files           323      719      +396     
  Lines         12836    82740    +69904     
  Branches        970      970               
=============================================
+ Hits           8426    26340    +17914     
- Misses         4050    54241    +50191     
- Partials        360     2159     +1799     

Flag	Coverage Δ
golib_unit	53.85% <ø> (?)
grove_unit	12.02% <ø> (?)
t3c_unit	5.88% <ø> (?)
traffic_monitor_unit	25.47% <ø> (?)
traffic_ops_integration	69.42% <ø> (ø)
traffic_ops_unit	21.67% <14.28%> (?)
traffic_portal_v2	74.35% <ø> (ø)
traffic_stats_unit	10.78% <ø> (?)
unit_tests	29.15% <14.28%> (-45.21%)	⬇️
v3	57.79% <ø> (ø)
v4	79.18% <ø> (ø)
v5	78.58% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ocket8888]

I am -1 on this idea. The promise of a comments field being used only for humans' benefits has been repeatedly broken on other objects, and a Parameter ought to be too small to express anything complex enough to require a comment. In fact, Parameters as objects should not even exist in their own right, IMO, and - especially now that Profile layering is possible - instead just be properties of Profiles. In some respects, they are represented that way already, and that means that this amounts to, in those cases, having an unbounded number of free-form text fields on a collection of free-form text fields on a Profile.

[ntheanh201]

at way already, and that means that this amounts to, in those cases, having an unbounded number of free-form text fields on a collection of free-form text fields on a Profile.

IMO I still need a description of some special parameters that are required for the Profile

[ocket8888]

Any Parameter that is required for a Profile of some given type ought not to be optionally provided by the data model; instead it should be a required property of a Profile.

[mitchell852]

@ntheanh201 - can you make it optional to show this comment field in traffic portal? for example, add a config setting like parameter.comment.show = false to the traffic portal properties file and key off that in the UI.

[ntheanh201]

@ntheanh201 - can you make it optional to show this comment field in traffic portal? for example, add a config setting like parameter.comment.show = false to the traffic portal properties file and key off that in the UI.

Updated like this, please take a look!

[ocket8888]

I'm still -1 on this idea. Adding tech debt doesn't seem like a good way to resolve tech debt.

[kdamichie]

Looks good. Comment field is present under parameters

[kdamichie]

Sorry to amend my response. But can you verify this test failure. Looks like it needs a test update.

[kdamichie]

@ntheanh201 ^

[ntheanh201]

Sorry to amend my response. But can you verify this test failure. Looks like it needs a test update.

It has not failed because of this code, this failure is related to the integration tests themselves being broken, you can see some other commits

[kdamichie]

Approved

[zrhoffman]

@ocket8888 Responded in #7456 (comment) because a PR is not the place to discuss the validity of an Issue. With no response after a week, I'll assume you agree and will merge

[ntheanh201]

@zrhoffman can you merge?

[zrhoffman]

@zrhoffman can you merge?

If we can verify that no committers are against #7845 being merged, yes. I'll clarify in Issue #7456 :)

[zrhoffman]

Just a small change needed with the migration timestamp, then it should be good to merge. Thanks!

[ntheanh201]

@zrhoffman I updated it

[zrhoffman]

Look great, thanks a lot! :)