On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > On 9 May 2018, at 15:46, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi xwikiers, >> > >> > Denis expressed to me some concerns about the type that should be >> > associated to Mail.MailConfig since it contains configuration data. >> > >> > One important issue I see if that this page is primarily an admin >> > configuration UI >> >> I don’t understand this sentence. MailConfig is not an UI and it doesn’t >> contain configuration for UI. It contains config for the mail server, mail >> properties, etc. It contains mail configuration data. Not related to UI. >> >> > which happen to also contains configuration data >> > (would have been much cleaner to store the data in a generated >> > document…) >> >> Same, could you explain this more? >> >> > so I think the best for now is to keep the default type. >> > Since you are not supposed to go trough edit more to modify those >> > configuration data, the edit protection should not really affect users >> > in practice (no warning when using admin UI). >> >> We happen to have some Admin UI that changes the MailConfig page so I’m >> fine to use ‘default’ (i.e. to warn the users when they try to edit it). >> >> The important aspect is that we don’t try to merge it when the admin >> upgrades the wiki and there’s been changes brought to it (through the Admin >> UI), and I believe “default” will achieve this. >> > > Note that on the merge side, the purpose of "default" is to explicitly > merge any updates. > > "default: used to force the default. Edit and delete are not allowed and a > 3-way merge is applied to the document during upgrades." > > Perhaps a more appropriate type for this page would be: > > "configuration: a document containing configuration. Edit is allowed and > the document is never upgraded." > > ...since, after all, the main purpose of Mail.MailConfig is to be a > configuration page, with some stray (and rather static, i.e. don't change > often) UI elements in it (ConfigurationClass) that need to be extracted to > a different page (and *that* page will be set to type "default"). > > >> >> Now we might have other *Config pages for which we’re currently lacking an >> Admin UI till we provide such a UI, we’ll need to mark those as “demo” for >> now. >> > > Same here... semantically, those are "configuration" pages as well. > > > > Side note: Now, I notice a weird thing in the definition of the > "configuration" type: > > "Edit is allowed <note for Vincent: delete is disallowed. We should write > this explicitly to clarify> and the document is never upgraded." > > ...and I kind of understand why Vincent might have suggested "demo", which > says: > > "Edit and delete are allowed and the document is upgraded only if it's not > been customized." > > ...which is something that should, IMO, apply to "configuration" types as > well, since it would make sense to keep using the default configuration > values of an application (whichever those are and however they evolve > across time), until we start customizing them. > > i.e. "configuration" should be: allow edit, disallow delete and only > upgrade if there were no changes. > > WDYT?
We already discussed this in another mail and the rational is to not change the behavior controlled by configuration when you upgrade (other than the possible WTF effect it could also be very dangerous in case of configuration involving things like rights). When you don't modify the configuration it usually means you are OK with the configuration, but you might not be OK at all with a new default configuration. On dev side it also gives you the liberty to change the default configuration drastically without the fear to break anyone during upgrade because it will apply only for new installs. If you want to move to the new default it's still possible either by using some factory reset button if provided or use the history. > > > > Side note2: Just a quick reminder that for configuration, in the best case > scenario (where we have no mixing of code with configuration data), the > default actions should be to merge > like all the other package managers outthere. Actually the default in dpkg (Debian) is to not touch the configuration. You just get warning in interactive mode that you have a conflict and you have the possibility to replace your customized configuration file with the new default instead. No merge in default system, not even as an option (we are bypassing standard configuration file handling in XWiki package to get 3 ways merge support). > > Thanks, > Eduard > > >> >> So ok for me for MailConfig (if I understood correctly). >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> > >> > WDYT ? >> > >> > -- >> > Thomas Mortagne >> >> -- Thomas Mortagne
