On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > If an icla comes in, and the generated name user-name.pdf already exists, a > warning is raised. > > Warning: documents/iclas/craig-russell.pdf already exists > (proceed anyway) (cancel) > > This is almost good. It prevents filing a new icla where the icla already > exists. [The (cancel) button doesn't work. It probably is not needed because > if there is a problem, the input fields can be fixed and (File) button still > works. I understand this is generic error handling. ] > > But this is exactly the case for an icla being filed because an account is > unusable because of an inaccessible email address. In this case, both iclas > should be filed. But instead of creating a new entry in iclas.txt, the > existing entry should have its email address changed. > > So, in the duplicate icla file name case, the processing should be: > > svn mkdir user-name > svn mv user-name.pdf user-name > svn add user-name/user-name2.pdf > > And in the iclas.txt processing: > find the User Name entry > replace the email-address with the incoming email-address > > The warning (proceed anyway) will perform the above actions if in fact the > second icla should be filed.
Looking at the icla filing code: https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blob/master/www/secretary/workbench/views/actions/icla.json.rb What you are suggesting is to have a different document commit logic, different logic to update iclas.txt, similar but possibly tweaked email logic and no need for the account request logic. So to start with, it feels like a different action. This will keep the code cleaner: one set of code for filing a new icla, and a separate set of code for an email address change. Now lets talk about workflow: Do you generally know up front that this is an email change request, if is so would it make more sense to either select that up front or start over with a new action in the rare cases where you discover this later? Or is it generally the case where you have entered an amount of data, started the request, discovered that it is an email address change, and would like to be prompted to reissue the request? Or is it the case that you want the software to determine what is necessary and just do it without any need for you being aware that this is a separate action? > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo - Sam Ruby
