On 10/17/18 10:37 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On 17 Oct 2018, at 10:31, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
On 10/17/18 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 17 Oct 2018, at 10:12, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
Hi Vincent and all,
On 10/17/18 9:41 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 16 Oct 2018, at 17:43, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm coming back on this proposal as the work is going on, to basically propose
to dropping the warning on copy action.
I try to sum up why in the following.
When implementing the proposal, I was adviced to use an event listener,
observing the deleting event for informing the user if he were doing a
refactoring on a document containing an XClass.
This work is already implemented and working for Moving/Renaming pages (which
involve deleting the old page) and of course deleting.
The nice part about the listener is that it works for all use cases:
* rename/move from the UI
* rename/move from scripts
* etc
To ease the discussion I just created a design page with some screenshot of my
current work. Then you can see what it looks like for the user:
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/PreventUserFromXClassRefactoring
Ok cool so it seems you have it implemented at both the job level and the
listener level.
The bad parts are:
1) right now we don’t provide a nice UI when an event is cancelled. AFAIR we
just display a stack trace in the UI which is definitely not good enough. Are
you improving this part?
I reused the existing UI which does not look so bad IMO (see the screenshot in
the design page).
This is what happens in the AntiSpam app when the event is cancelled (ie when
it finds some spam in the doc):
https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Extension/AntiSpam%20Tool%20Application/antispam-error.png
As you can see it’s not really user-friendly.
Maybe you don’t get this because you’re running inside a job? But in this case
I don’t understand why you need a listener since you check for XClass before
you start the move/rename.
I must be missing something.
I don't check before I start the move/rename, I'm checking after the job
already started. I reuse exactly the same mechanism as the one used when
refactoring a page that belongs to an extension:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14591.
Yes and I remember mentioning that for me it’s too late… How do you rollback
the move/rename if you find an XClass after having renamed/moved 100 pages? And
yes there’s the same problem with the other refactoring (and I already
mentioned the problem) but we need to improve at some point and not continue
doing it in a suboptimal way. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the user.
Actually you don't have to rollback: the listener is catching the event
before doing the refactoring, so the user has a chance to edit the list
of pages to refactor before the refactor begins.
2) this is after the fact. Imagine that you’re renaming a set of pages and
among them there are several coming from an app. It’ll work fine on pages not
having an XClass (like moving the page having an XObject of that XClass) and
then failing down the line on the page having the XClass. That’s a problem
because the xobject page will be wrongly moved, since it doesn’t make sense
that it’s moved if the other pages of the app are not moved. Generally speaking
you’ll have a bad state that is not easy to rollback.
This is why for me the check also has to be done in the move/rename UI and
verify that among the list of pages there are none with XClass and if so
prevent moving/renaming any page.
This is not in contradiction with the listener but the more important (from a
usage POV) is the check in the move/rename UI and not the listener which is a
more advanced use case.
There might be a misunderstanding here: I use the listener to check the event
that are fired during the rename/move. As you can see in my screenshot, I got
the warning in the move/refactoring UI.
This listener is registered only during rename/move?
What happens if I write a script that moves/renames pages with XClass?
Nop the listener is globally registered, so I assume it would be triggered when
running a script too.
ok, so try this: http://playground.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/delete/MyPage/?confirm=1
What happens?
Coming back to you after I checked :)
Now going back on "Copy" the page, it's another job as I cannot rely on a
"Deleting" event. I checked quickly and I don't think I really could rely on other events
for this: basically copying is about creating a document and updating its content, and I don't
think we want to rely on those event for this mechanism.
So unless you have another proposal to handle this case, I propose to simply
drop it.
Do you agree?
AFAIK if you copy a set of pages with pages having an XClass in it, then the
copied pages won’t work so we shouldn’t drop this. We should just implement the
protection at the UI level (ie the copy action), same as for rename/move and
not implement the listener part (ie not support the script use case).
I don't agree: the pages would work, but if they contain XObject they won't use
the copied XClass, only the older one.
So for me the issue is not exactly the same: the problematic is not about
copying an XClass here, but a couple XClass + XObject. More difficult to detect
and to handle IMO.
I still think we should handle it with a warning to explain this. It’s easy for
me, we just need to check for XClass and warn that any copied pages having a
link to this XClass will no longer point to it but will keep pointing to the
original XClass. Easy to do.
I can handle it only on the UI side then.
Yes, I agree.
Thanks
-Vincent
Simon
Thanks
-Vincent
Simon
Thanks
-Vincent
Simon
On 9/26/18 10:27 AM, Simon Urli wrote:
Hi everyone,
ok trying to sum-up (I'm only talking about cases with XClass below, to
simplify):
- according to Vincent, we should completely prevent simple users to
copy/move/rename and only allow advanced users to do it after a warning
- according to Adel & Clément: preventing simple users will be useless as
they can easily switch the advanced feature in their account
- according to Marius copying a page/app is not necessarily harmful compared
to moving/renaming and we should manage it differently.
I really don't know the practice of users on the field, but it looks to me that
preventing simple users to do the action and telling them to ask an advanced
user is actually a good trade-off:
1. it will warn users that they might be doing something wrong
2. it's not something completely blocking: either they ask for the
admin/advanced user, or they know they can switch the advanced features by
themselves, at their own risks
Now maybe we can only do the warning for the "copy" action.
WDYT?
Simon
On 9/25/18 11:36 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi Marius,
On 25 Sep 2018, at 11:34, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:12 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 21 Sep 2018, at 16:58, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
On 9/21/18 4:53 PM, Adel Atallah wrote:
+1 for the warning, but I would not forbid simple users from renaming
or moving pages but instead just hide the action (from the page menu).
OK I should have written it: by "forbid" I meant:
1. Hide the action from the menu
2. Return an error message if the user try to access the
renaming/moving page (using forged URL)
So you suggest we shouldn't do 2?
So +1 to prevent/warn the user when doing a move/renaming
AND copy pages containing XClass definitions
FTR, copying a single page having an XClass definition is not dangerous (it
won't break the application that owns the page), as it only creates a new
class definition. Copying an entire application is not dangerous either.
The copy won't work like the original application (this justifies a warning
as it may fail the user expectations), but the original application will
still work. Renaming or moving an application is dangerous as it breaks the
application.
Yes you’re correct. Unless the user does a copy + delete ;)
Thanks
-Vincent
(the message should list all such pages).
-1 to hide the action from the menu (if you’re talking about the
“Move/Rename” and “Copy" actions) because:
1) you get to choose whether you move/rename/copy children after you click
the action
2) even when the current page has an XClass, the user wouldn't understand
why he cannot see/click on the action. It’s better that he can do it but
get an error message, explaining why and telling him that to contact an
advanced users if he really needs to do it.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:44 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
users might currently break their AWM application by renaming/moving
pages containing XClass definition.
We need a proper refactoring operation to be able to properly do such
move/rename. But this feature might take a while to be completely
available.
In the meantime I propose that we prevent users from renaming/moving
pages containing XClass.
What I propose is the following:
- Forbid completely *simple users* to rename/move pages containing
XClass
- Display a warning to *advanced users* when they perform such
operation: the same kind of warning we already have when performing
edit
on XWiki pages
WDYT?
Simon
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.u...@xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
