On 7/12/2011 4:47 PM, Adam Young wrote:

Some issues:

1. In DNS record adder dialog, the data field is required but it's not checked before submit. There is no param_info for this field, so the required flag may need to be specified explicitly in the field declaration.

2. Adding/deleting record data in DNS record details page doesn't work because the field.param_info is null. Although the default param_info is specified in the field declaration, the code in widget.js:166 will override it to null. We might want to merge the param_infos using $.extend().

3. I cannot try this due to issue #2, but in CLI when the last data is removed using -mod the record itself will be deleted. The record has to be re-added before it can be modified again. A user might encounter this issue if he removes all existing data, click Update, then add new data without leaving the details page. The patch doesn't seem to handle this.

4. The interface might be a little confusing. If a DNS record contains multiple data, the search page will show them as separate entries. When a user opens one of the entries he would expect to edit only that particular data. However, the details page now shows all data under that DNS record name.

One solution is to drop the data from the search page. Another solution is to change the details page to show only one data.

5. Deleting DNS records from the search page doesn't work because it doesn't specify the data to be deleted.

6. The FQDN field label is probably incorrect because not all DNS records are hostnames. Also, for records that are hostnames, the FQDN field only contains the host's short name, not the full name.

7. DNS records that are not hostnames will be linked to hosts if there happens to be hosts with matching names. The link probably should be limited to certain record types. Same issue from host to DNS record.

8. The IPA.entity_link_widget should use the -show command instead of -find to check the target entry. The -find command returns all entries that match the criteria, which might not be what we want.

9. The following statement in details.js:594

    var param_info = field.param_info ||
        IPA.get_entity_param(entity_name, field.name);

can be simplified into

    var param_info = field.param_info;

because the field.param_info is obtained using the same get_entity_param() in widget.js:166.

10. The following statement in details.js:594

    if (param_info && param_info.primary_key) continue;

can be simplified into

    if (param_info.primary_key) continue;

because the param_info is already checked by the previous if-statement.

11. The fake_param in widget.js:43 and dns.js:143 is no longer needed.

12. It's not necessary to specify 'primary_key: false' in the param_info because by default it will be false. The param_info can be simplified into just { }.

13. The labels are still hard-coded. Is this going to be done in a separate patch?

14. Some field labels have 'Records' (e.g. A Records) some others don't (e.g. NS). I think they should be consistent.

15. It might be better to use 'other/Other Records' instead of using 'unusual/less common record types' for the third detail section.

16. The other_pkey() in host.js:132 seems to be unnecessary.

17. The show_page() in IPA.navigation can be modified to find the entity object and wrap the pkey then call show_entity_page(). This way we can avoid duplicating the function.

18. Optional: As mentioned over IRC, I think it's better to customize by creating a subclass and override the method (OO style) rather than supplying a callback function via constructor (functional style).

So instead of creating a standalone IPA.dns_record_search_load we could create an IPA.dnsrecord_search_facet class and override the load() method. Instead of using 'this' in a function (which is not clear what it's pointing to), we would be using 'that' which points to the containing class. This is similar to IPA.dnsrecord_host_link_widget.

Endi S. Dewata

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to