> On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:02, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 13:55, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Rewriting the import UI is not part of the proposed options right now. >>> If you have the time to do it, sure. >>> >>> In the meantime what we have right now is that you ask to import some >>> page and don't see anything in the page history while I think most >>> people will expect to see a new version with an "import" comment. >> >> That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just >> expect that the content of their wiki after the import is the same as what >> is in the XAR. >> >> As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know >> was in a XAR and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :) > > Importing a XAR is quite technical now since you usually don't use > that to install applications and if ever a non technical user import a > XAR he will probably not even look at the history anyway. > Exactly, the only very small improvement that could be made, is about the > option checked. Currently it is saying “Add a new version to the existing > page”, which might allow arguing about none being added. So, maybe we could > write, "Add a new version to the existing page (when modified)” or anything > similar. > wdyt ?
Yes that could a simple low cost solution for now. Thanks -Vincent > Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 10:18, Marius Dumitru Florea >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we generate a new version then the user may get confused when comparing >>>>> the versions. Seeing "No changes" when comparing two consecutive versions >>>>> of a page can make the user loose his trust in the diff: "There must be >>>>> some change that the diff doesn't detect because otherwise I wouldn't have >>>>> two versions". >>>>> >>>>> I think we should keep the current behavior but we should improve the >>>>> status displayed after the import. Besides the list of pages that have >>>>> been >>>>> imported (saved with a new version) we can have a list of pages that have >>>>> been skipped (because there were no changes). Or we could mark the skipped >>>>> pages distinctly in the list of imported pages. I think the users will >>>>> appreciate this, especially since it allows them to see clearly what pages >>>>> have really been changed by the import. >>>> >>>> Sounds good to me. Would be nice to have some saved job logs for imports >>>> too (as we have for DW upgrades) and the info that the page was skipped >>>> would be in that log and the admin could go back to check what was done >>>> for a given import. Or something like this. But having a temporary report >>>> showing this info would already be a good first step. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Marius >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Mortagne >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a unintended regression in the standard import: if what you >>>>>> import is identical to what is already in the database (including the >>>>>> author) it won't add a new version (if you use the default option "Add >>>>>> a new version to the existing page"). >>>>>> >>>>>> What happen in practice is that if you keep calling XWikiDocument#set* >>>>>> methods with the same data it won't update the metadata or content >>>>>> dirty flags. This flags are what hibernate store look at to know if it >>>>>> should add a new version or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can reproduce the same behavior with a simple script which load a >>>>>> document, always set the same content and save. You will notice that >>>>>> the history of that document does not change. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the question is do we force metadata dirty to true all the time in >>>>>> the instance output filter or do we keep this feature (in which case >>>>>> we should optimize it a bit to not do the useless XWiki#saveDocument >>>>>> but that's another subject). >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>> >>>>>> It could be seen as a nice feature but in practice my first reaction >>>>>> was WTF and you often want to be sure the import actually did >>>>>> something so I'm +1 to force metadata dirty. But I'm +0 to keep the >>>>>> current behavior if there is a majority for it. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas Mortagne >> > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne
