Since I hit more and more the need to allow to customize an entry point without deleting it (or it will break a hardcoded menu/link) I just introduce the following type:
* "customizable": same thing as "home" and for the same reasons but more generic. I guess we could simply get rid of "home" type since the main use case seems to tend to "demo" (see dedicated mails thread) I tough about "editable" but I find it too wide. On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:27, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> When dealing with extension pages protection we ended up with a very >>> visible issue: EVERYONE customize the home page so it does not make >>> much sense to warn every user trying to edit it that it's dangerous >>> and might break the extensions. >>> >>> Since it's not the only use case 10.3 introduce the concept of XAR >>> entry type which allow controlling a bit more edit/delete and upgrade >>> behavior. See >>> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/XAR+Module+Specifications#Hpackage.xml >>> for more details. >>> >>> On component side it's possible to decide the default type of a page >>> reference (that's where "Main.WebHome" type come from currently). It's >>> also possible to override the upgrade behavior for a specific type or >>> even a specific reference for more exotic use cases. >>> >>> So it's now possible to control the type you want for a page at XAR >>> descriptor level. I already typed a few page, for example >>> "Main.WebHome" is now of type "home" which means "it's OK to edit it >>> and you should only upgrade it if no customization have been made". >>> >>> Cool home page is covered but we now entered a new era of endless >>> debates to decide of what type some page should be and what other >>> types to introduce :) >> >> Could you list all pages for which you’ve put “demo”, “home” and >> “configuration" types so far? > > The current status is (hope I don't forget anything): > > * demo > (https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22%3Ctype%3Edemo%3C%2Ftype%3E%22&type=) > ** Sandbox visible sub pages > ** Color themes > ** XWiki.DefaultSkin > ** soon Main.WebHome it seems :) > ** [jetty+hsqldb+flavor] Admin user > > * configuration > (https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22%3Ctype%3Econfiguration%3C%2Ftype%3E%22&type=) > ** XWiki.XWikiPreferences (default type provided by a component) > ** [jetty+hsqldb+flavor] XWikiAdminGroup and XWikiAllGroup > > * home > (https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22%3Ctype%3Ehome%3C%2Ftype%3E%22&type=) > ** Sandbox.WebHome since it's the hardcoded entry point of the sandbox > application so not too nice to delete it > > * to discuss AFAIK: > ** Dashboard.WebHome home page, either "demo" or something a bit more > restrictive like "home" since it's the entry point of dashboard > application so not very nice to delete it > ** and of course Contrib extensions will need to take care of that too > >> >> Also in the doc you say " • default: used to force the default. Edit >> and delete are not allowed and a 3-way merge is applied to the document >> during upgrades.” >> >> AFAIU this is the default when no type is specified, right? Did you mean to >> say “Edit and delete are allowed”? > > It's not about making that page behave as a non-extension page, it's > only here to force the default extension page behavior. > > It's possible trough components to indicate a type for a given local > reference when no explicit type a been set. So this value allow to > bypass this when you want to make extra sure your page will have the > default behavior (for example some flavor in which you are not > supposed to touch the Main.WebHome since Main.WebHome is current > getting its type as "the default type for Main.WebHome reference in > general"). > >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> >>> We are not going to discuss all these in this mail so everyone with a >>> doubt should start a discussion for a standard page (or a set of >>> standard page which are obviously very similar like color themes). >>> >>> Currently, protected page produce a warning that you can force. The >>> plan in 10.4 is to keep the warning only for advanced completely >>> prevent basic user to modify protected pages by default and also allow >>> configuring all that (indicate in your profile that you don't want to >>> be bothered with that, override edit/delete right even for advanced >>> users, etc.). But before that we need to make sure basic users are >>> allowed to edit all the pages they are supposed to edit. >>> >>> Happy tuning :) >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas Mortagne >> > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne -- Thomas Mortagne
