I have finished my functional review of the metadata branch and verified it
addresses the following tickets:

http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/345
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/486
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/492
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/498
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/500
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/501
http://projects.opengeo.org/CAPRA/ticket/564

You can find more information about the changes and the commands to run it
in my previous post about it to the list [0]

For now I would like to point out a few rough edges I found during the
development:

 1. *Updating the shp for a given layer gives a HTTP 403* response and does
not even reach the layerController view. All the code to delete from
Geoserver and Geonetwork as well as inserting new records to both of them is
working, fixing this operation is just a matter of figuring out why that 403
error is popping out and then making sure all the operations are called in
the right order.

 2. *uuids, unit tests and idempotent-iveness of interactions with
geonetwork. * This one alone deserves another mail where I would addres the
duplication of geonetwork records, the testing setup and some ideas.

 3. *layerController.* Currently we have the following scheme for the layer
operations:

     /data/base:district?describe -> edit metadata
     /data/base:district?update -> Udate layer data
     /data/base:district?remove -> Remove layer
     /data/base:district?style -> Change default style

     We are accessing the QUERY STRING and performing the routing inside the
layerController view, I suggest we change that approach to a more elegant
use of django routers and use the opportunity to add named urls so one can
reference for example the metadata editing url for a given layer in a
template as well as make debugging easier  (for example in the case of the
update operation that is broken at the moment). Also, the colons ":" are
special chars in a url and we should not use them so liberally[1] (although
I admit it could work), I would suggest we either uriencode them (ugly!) or
change them for something else, for example:

    /data/base/district/describe
    /data/base/district/update
    /data/base/district/remove
    /data/base/district/style

 Since base and district already have a hierarchical relationship I would
see no problem in separating them with slashes like this.

 This is all for now, I will address the uuid topic in a separate email and
hope a good soul (David? Seb?) can review my changes and help me get them
into the master branch.

Ariel.

[0]
http://librelist.com/browser//geonode/2010/7/6/ariel-s-update-metadata-branch/#4e85a475ddbc734becf818536492547e
[1] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/4_URI_Recommentations.html

Reply via email to