On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:04 PM Guillaume Delhumeau < guillaume.delhum...@xwiki.com> wrote:
> Why can't we introduce an "Update objects" field, but only when the page > actually hold an XClass? It's not the main use-case. It's even quite rare a > end-user rename such a page. That would not complicate the UI that much 99% > of the times. > Renaming directly a page that defines a class might be rare but renaming a page that has a child page that defines a class is definitely not rare. So you're suggesting to always update the objects when renaming the parent of a class (with "Preserve child pages" on) but to allow the (advanced) users to decide not to update the objects when renaming directly the class? Or are you suggesting to use the "Update links" option when renaming the parent of a class and the "Update objects" option when renaming directly the class? I find both ways too complicated. > > A warning could also be displayed, saying that it might break some > application (even when updating the XObjects, because the Velocity scripts > are not magically updated as well). > > Le mer. 30 janv. 2019 à 16:55, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> a écrit : > > > Hi Marius, > > > > On 30/01/2019 15:45, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > I'm working on https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-1660 (I need it for > > > https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13352) and I'd like to change the > > page > > > rename job (from refactoring module) to update the existing objects > when > > a > > > class is renamed *if the "Update links" options is checked*. > > > > > > Of course, we could add a new option (e.g. "Update objects") but: > > > > > > * it complicates the rename UI (too many options) > > > * I think most of the users understand the current "Update links" > option > > as > > > "update the places where this page is *used*". I don't think it makes > > sense > > > to have separate options (at least at the UI level) for things like > > "Update > > > macro calls" or "Update image includes". > > > * I don't see why you would want to update the back-links but not the > > > objects (or the other way around). > > > > > > > I agree that the UI for final users should remain simple. Now on a dev > > user point of view maybe it might worth it to distinguish the two > > options in the RenameRequest. > > > > > If we agree on using a single option ("Update links") then the next > > > questions are: > > > > > > * Is there a better name? I think "Update links" is a good name for > > simple > > > users so I would keep it. Another option is "Update references" but it > > has > > > a special meaning for XWiki developers. > > > > > > * Should we update the hint for the "Update links" option? I think we > > > should, but only for advanced users, since they should be aware of the > > > implications of renaming a class. Simple users are not aware of the > > > existence of objects, most probably, so I wouldn't complicate their > > lives. > > > > > > The final question is whether we should keep the rename job question > > about > > > classes. I think we should. The reason we added it is because renaming > a > > > class is currently dangerous. Updating the objects makes it a bit less > > > dangerous because the data is preserved, but classes are often used in > > > scripts (e.g. a live table) and those scripts are not updated so > there's > > a > > > high chance that something will not work correctly after the class > > rename. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > I agree that the question should remain if we cannot guarantee that all > > mentions of the classes are not renamed. > > > > Simon > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Marius > > > > > > > -- > > Simon Urli > > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS > > simon.u...@xwiki.com > > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > > > > > -- > Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhum...@xwiki.com) > Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS > Committer on the XWiki.org project >
