January 2013 - xwiki-devs@xwiki.org

[xwiki-devs] [proposal] Process to handle Pull Requests
by Ludovic Dubost 10 May '19

10 May '19

Hi devs, I don't think there is currently a process that is in place to handle pull requests and I have the feeling that the way there are handled today is a bit random. There are usually comments sent out on each pull request but sometimes it seems that some pull requests are going in sleep mode and it's not clear who is in charge. I would like to suggest that a process is put in place where it's clear who is responsible for a pull request and a status is given to the contributors that propose that pull request. Something like: Assigned developer: XXXX Status: New -> new pull request, not yet assigned Assigned -> assigned to a developer, he is in charge of reviewing the pull request and ask for modifications or accept it. The developer can auto assign it to himself. If nobody does, we need to decide how they will be taken into account. ModificationsRequired -> for now rejected with comments. Contributor needs to apply comments and then change back to Assigned for further evaluation VoteRequired -> there are no more comments, but a vote is required as the changes to XWiki core are important WaitingFinalAuthorization -> optional step for complex patches where a additional authorization would be required (need to define who would be the persons that give the authorization) WaitingApplication -> there are no more comments and no changes or vote required. The pull request can be applied and is waiting for a developer to apply it Abandoned -> contributors is abandoning the pull request (cannot do the changes, no more time, etc..) Rejected -> pull request is rejected (quality not enough, etc..) Applied -> pull request is applied What do you think ? Ludovic -- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

7 12

[xwiki-devs] Convention for class property hints ?
by Jerome Velociter 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

Hello, Right now class property hints are not supported right in the core of XWiki (though it's been mentioned as a possible future item of the roadmap for AWM, see http://markmail.org/message/ltuphlj7bnnso2yb ). Once this will be implemented, it will rely on i18n message keys so that hints are localizables (same strategy as for class property pretty names) I'd like to start the discussion and see if we can agree on a convention that would be used in the future when this module is implemented. The reason for this is I'm starting to work on a LDAP admin UI, and I find that their field pretty names are not self-explanatory. It's not a matter of expression, it's just the fact that what they describe needs more explanation than what the pretty name can offer). In this light, I'm planning on displaying such longer hints in this admin section. Right now the format for a pretty name is : Space.Class_property=Pretty name The format for a hint could be something like : Space.Class_property.xHint=Hint This would need escaping rules I think, since I believe "property.xHint" is a valid property name Note that I use "xHint" and not "hint" to be consistent with the form standards class names. This can be discussed though. WDYT ? Do you have other ideas ? Jerome. -- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/

5 7

[xwiki-devs] [UX][Consistency][Vote] "Page" vs. "Document" consistent naming
by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

Hi, We are using mixed naming when referring to a document/page, not only on different pages, but also in the same context (Rename step for example). There is also an issue referring to this problem XWIKI-5401<http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-5401>and we need to find an answer in order to move forward consistency. So the question is which version we prefer: "Page" or "Document" ? I'm voting +1 for "Page". "Page" is more used IMO, especially in the "Space"/"Page" context. "Page" is more general than "Document" and better fitted for a platform that encapsulates all kind of content (not just documents). Please cast your vote. Thanks, Caty

10 14

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Split XE pages into platform modules
by Vincent Massol 06 Mar '15

06 Mar '15

Hi devs, Here's a proposal to move pages currently located in XE into platform modules: * ColorThemes/*.xml --> xwiki-platform-colorthemes * Main/Activity.xml --> xwiki-platform-activitystream-ui (move current xwiki-platform-activitytream into xwiki-platform-activitystream-api) * Main/AllDocs.xml (and XWiki.Tableview, XWiki.Treeview, XWiki.OrphanedPages, XWiki.AllAttachments*, XWiki.DeletedDocuments, XWiki.DeletedAttachments and all pages used by those) --> new xwiki-platform-navigation module * Main/RssFeeds.xml --> new xwiki-platform-help module or xwiki-platform-rss-ui module (see below) * Main/SpaceIndex.xml --> xwiki-platform-navigation * Main/Spaces.xml --> xwiki-platform-navigation * Main/UserDirectory.xml --> xwiki-platform-user-ui * Main/WebHome.xml --> xwiki-platform-dashboard-ui * Main/WebRss.xml --> new xwiki-platform-rss-ui module, we would create a xwiki-platform-rss-api module too where we will move the feed plugin * Main/Welcome.xml --> move to xwiki-platform-dashboard-ui since it's a dashboard gadget which we could consider as a default widget * Sandbox/*.xml --> xwiki-platform-sandbox module (or xwiki-platform-help module) * XWiki/XWikSyntax.xml --> xwiki-platform-help module * XWiki/AttachmentSelector.xml --> xwiki-platform-user-ui or new xwiki-platform-attachmentselector module * XWiki/ClassSheet, ClassTemplate, ObjectSheet, XWikiClasses, * XWiki/GadgetClass.xml --> xwiki-platform-dashboard-ui * XWiki/LiveTableResult*.xml --> new xwiki-platform-livetable module * XWiki/MessageStreamConfig.xml --> new xwiki-platform-messagestream-ui module (and move xwiki-platform-message in xwiki-platform-message-api module) * XWiki/RequestsStatus.xml --> xwiki-platform-administration module or remove from platform till we integrate it in the Admin as an admin tool somewhere since right now I think it's available in the Admin tools application * XWiki/RequiredRightClass.xml --> since it's used in lots of other ui modules I'd propose to move it in java code as a class created on startup. Alternatively start creating a xwiki-platform-rights-ui module (or xwiki-platform-permission-ui module) and move it there * XWiki/SharePage.xml --> not sure…. maybe in a xwiki-platform-share or xwiki-platform-sharepage module * XWiki/TemplateProvider*.xml --> xwiki-platform-administration for the moment * XWiki/WebHome.xml --> xwiki-platform-administration module * XWiki/WebPreferences.xml --> xwiki-platform-administration module WDYT? Please try to tell me if you're ok for each line if you have time ;) Thanks -Vincent

8 20

[xwiki-devs] Questions about fixing getRenderedContent() bug
by Vincent Massol 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

Hi, Im trying to fix http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-4274 Basically if you do $xwiki.getDocument("someDoc").getRenderedContent() it'll get executed in the context of the current doc which I believe is wrong especially since other signatures of getRenderedContent() execute in the target document's context. I have fixed this locally but found that admin.vm for example is assuming that getRenderedContent() will get executed in the context of the calling doc (i.e. XWiki.Import when doing an import for example). FYI the chain flow is admin.vm -- getRenderedContent() --> XWiki.AdminSheet --> XWiki.AdminImportSheet --> importinline.vm, which requires the current doc to be XWiki.Import (to get/put attachments from/to it). I can fix this easily using a new getRenderedContent signature I've introduced. However I'm wondering if we have other places that incorrectly use getRenderedContent() and assume it won't be rendered in the context of the target document. Is this change too dangerous to make? If not know, we'll need to it quickly (2.1M1?) since it's an important bug IMO. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent

4 7

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
by Vincent Massol 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

Hi devs, Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results. For example: [INFO] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT [INFO] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- … [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties --- [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found: [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found: [WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile [WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test [WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test The question is (for this module but more generally for all others): * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep) I think we should, wdyt? Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused. See http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen… Thanks -Vincent

6 16

[xwiki-devs] [Vote] Creation of a design wiki and it's purpose
by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Hi, *Short version* for voting: *A*. Creation of a new wiki on xwiki.org farm that will hold development process details about a specific feature. This wiki will deprecate dev.xwiki.org:Design and incubator.myxwiki.org *B*. Vote on naming alternatives for this new wiki: design.xwiki.org incubator.xwiki.org *C*. UI on how a Proposal will be displayed in this new wiki (example AppWithinMinutes): http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/XWikiOrgDesignWiki ------------------------------------------------ *Long version: * Right now development process activities are located in multiple places: - Analysis + Architecture: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/ - Analysis + User Interface: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/ - Other: http://xwiki.markmail.org/, http://jira.xwiki.org, chats, git comments, etc. This process can be hard to optimize and information is hard to track if you are looking for specific information. And the worst part of it is that is hard to automatize and lots of the items need manual gathering or search. *Part A. * This mail is about combining http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/and http://incubator.myxwiki.org/ work in a single place. This has already been discussed several times before ( http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/kc32dufsf7nyyt6s and http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/izj6aiyodwqia4vl) and the vote was favorable in this direction. The proposal was to create a new wiki called design.xwiki.org that will contain the combined information and that will target developers. The new wiki will be used to gather only proposal's development process information: requirements, architecture, solutions alternatives, user interface variants, planning, etc. for a specific feature/idea/improvement. After the proposal is implemented it will be properly documented in the right location for users (ex platform.xwiki.org) It is acceptable to have CSS + JS code on this wiki in order to demonstrate the functionality of the proposals, but we should not add experimental/dangerous code (groovy scripts, jars, etc.). For this case it is advisable to use a test machine, share your own instance or use the contrib.xwiki.org repository for hosting. The version upgrades will be handle by a community admin and the wiki gardening by me. The data from incubator.myxwiki.org and dev.xwiki.org:Design will be moved gradually after the new wiki is created. *Part B. * You should state your opinion regarding which name is better for the new wiki: - design.xwiki.org - incubator.xwiki.org - we accept other proposals. *Part C.* I've made a proposal on how a proposal page would look like: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/XWikiOrgDesignWiki The proposal page will gather all the information related to it, making it easier to track it's progress. The entries will be separated depending on 4 categories: Analysis, Architecture, User Interface and Implementation, each category having it's own status, participants, jiras and timeframe. Categories are not mandatory for all proposals, smaller proposals will have just the related pages for certain areas. Each proposal will store it's data in a dedicated space. The implementation of the proposal will be handled by me. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Caty

9 23

[xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Should technical pages hide the bottom tabs?
by Sergiu Dumitriu 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

Hi devs, For content pages, the bottom tabs (comments, attachments, history, information) are very useful features. But does it make sense to keep those active for very technical pages? For example, when viewing details about a tag, (Main/Tags?do=viewTag), why should people be allowed to comment? They might wrongly think that they're commenting on a tag, but that's just one complex page that handles almost everything about tags, so a comment like "this tag has a typo" doesn't help at all. Other pages should have no bottom tabs as well: user directory, blog category management, the whole scheduler space, share by email... While the homepage is a technical page (by default), it does make sense to leave the comments active, since it's the entry point for every user (although I think that the messaging system is a better way to send global messages). IMO, the advantage is that we're hiding actions that are rarely useful, but could be misused. The disadvantage is that we're breaking the universality of the UI. I'm +1 for hiding, fewer mis-usable features is always better. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

7 11

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Finding how many active instances of XWiki there are out there
by Vincent Massol 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

Hi devs, I think it would be great to have some indication of how many active instances of XWiki are out there in the wild. The idea is not so much to know the figure but to see how this figures evolves and thus to see if we're doing things right. It will also give us information about how quickly or slowly our user base upgrades from version to version. Here's my proposal: * When installing XWiki on a clean DB (ie first time install) generate a unique id and store it in the DB (similar to the version we're storing in the DB but using some UUID). Thus when an install is upgraded the same id is preserved. * When the Extension Manager is used and thus connects to extensions.xwiki.org (default extension repository), this unique ID is sent too. * In addition the version of XE is sent too * On extensions.xwiki.org side, we only log the unique ID/XE version **without** logging the IP or any other information thus ensuring that the ID remains completely anonymous * We display a counter on xwiki.org about the # of active instances of XE with a graph about XE versions used WDYT? Thanks -Vincent

5 8

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Add CLA for contributions + Foundation
by Vincent Massol 27 Aug '13

27 Aug '13

Hi devs, I'd like to propose the following: * That we start asking for a CLA for contributions (and also for current committers) * That we keep the process lightweight in order to not make it harder to contribute to the xwiki project. For this I propose to use http://www.clahub.com/ In order to understand why we need a CLA read: * http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement If we agree we then need to define our CLA. I think a good starting point could be the Node.js one: http://nodejs.org/cla.html Now I don't think the CLA will have any legal value if we cannot define "the XWiki project" as a legal entity. Thus I believe we need to start by joining some foundation or creating one. I'll list some easy possibilities: * SF Conservancy: http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ * SPI: http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ * Create our own Not for profit association Harder possibilities (need to change license, rename project, etc): * Join ASF * Join Eclipse (and be forced to use bugzilla as the issue tracker ;)) We also need to check if OW2 could offer that service of being a legal entity for XWiki. Personally I'm tempted more by our own association (it's quite easy to create one if we don't need to accept money and a bit more complex if we want to accept money but still doable). My second choice goes to SFC. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent

5 8